FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Why is the U K the favoured destination of Migrants ?
Why is the U K the favoured destination of Migrants ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
We are the furthest away , you have to go thru several countries to get here !
Are the other country's that bad ?
Or is the U K simply the best country to live in ?
Discuss |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ?  "
I think a lot of it is that they are spoon fed the idea that the UK is the land of milk and honey and that all of thier problems will just go away.
Just like back in the days when Kids used to run away to London to seek thier fortune because they never knew any better.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This answers why migrants choose the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html"
That's about EU migrants, I don't think the OP is referring those migrants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ?
I think a lot of it is that they are spoon fed the idea that the UK is the land of milk and honey and that all of thier problems will just go away.
Just like back in the days when Kids used to run away to London to seek thier fortune because they never knew any better.
"
This is my understanding.
They probably don't have great access to information and have to go on what they are told. Britain has the reputation. I think they dramatically over-estimate what they will be able to buy in Britain for those benefits!!
£71 a week - can't eat in a restaurant for that!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This answers why migrants choose the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html
That's about EU migrants, I don't think the OP is referring those migrants. "
Correct I'm mainly meaning people fleeing the Middle East and Africa !
I don't blame them but we are Not the First Safe Country ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ?
I think a lot of it is that they are spoon fed the idea that the UK is the land of milk and honey and that all of thier problems will just go away.
Just like back in the days when Kids used to run away to London to seek thier fortune because they never knew any better.
This is my understanding.
They probably don't have great access to information and have to go on what they are told. Britain has the reputation. I think they dramatically over-estimate what they will be able to buy in Britain for those benefits!!
£71 a week - can't eat in a restaurant for that!
"
I agree. It's the same phenomenon with the.big dream in America or going to the city to be rich. I'm a migrant (left the uk). I did the research. Pros and cons, looked at wages, cost of living, education, health etc. Many of the migrants may not have done the research.
By the way, free health in France. Although I'm not sure it's still free. Here in the Netherlands we pay insurance, but I get seen by a specialist within a week, never wait longer than 15 minutes and out straight away. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ? "
There are significantly more asylum applications in France and Germany than the UK. Just because some end up in Calais and want to come to Britain doesn't mean that they all do. Sky News did a report on this last year, quite interesting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ?
There are significantly more asylum applications in France and Germany than the UK. Just because some end up in Calais and want to come to Britain doesn't mean that they all do. Sky News did a report on this last year, quite interesting."
I did hope to get the numbers of migrants and asylum in different countries. Germany have higher immigration from non EU members. Does it mean they're a better country? Spain France and Italy follow the uk. In 2014 Germany is 372,000 uk is 287,000, Italy is 180,000. The figures have no correlation in benefits etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ?
There are significantly more asylum applications in France and Germany than the UK. Just because some end up in Calais and want to come to Britain doesn't mean that they all do. Sky News did a report on this last year, quite interesting."
The OP was asking about migrants. Asylum and refugees are different. Maybe figure for that would help. There is a restriction to that. Countries can reject asylum and control the figures. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ?
There are significantly more asylum applications in France and Germany than the UK. Just because some end up in Calais and want to come to Britain doesn't mean that they all do. Sky News did a report on this last year, quite interesting.
The OP was asking about migrants. Asylum and refugees are different. Maybe figure for that would help. There is a restriction to that. Countries can reject asylum and control the figures."
In 2014, Germany is over 150,000. Then Sweden, then France. Uk is further down the table with around 30-40 thousand.
Strange we allow more economical immigrants than actually helping other countries.
Stats from ec dot Europa dot eu |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We simply give the most to people who don't work out of all the other countries plus have free health service / dental care.  "
Last time I checked dental wasn't free.
Uk is ranked 18th in best health care in the EU reported by WHO.
As for benefits cannot find figures other than the uk. But it seems the UK is the easiest to obtain. Other countries require you to work or need to qualify for many months. So I wouldn't say it's the best. It's probably the easiest if that is what they are looking for.
Other EU countries offer higher family benefits than the uk.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We simply give the most to people who don't work out of all the other countries plus have free health service / dental care.
Last time I checked dental wasn't free.
Uk is ranked 18th in best health care in the EU reported by WHO.
As for benefits cannot find figures other than the uk. But it seems the UK is the easiest to obtain. Other countries require you to work or need to qualify for many months. So I wouldn't say it's the best. It's probably the easiest if that is what they are looking for.
Other EU countries offer higher family benefits than the uk.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html
"
18th in the world, rather than EU |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We simply give the most to people who don't work out of all the other countries plus have free health service / dental care.
Last time I checked dental wasn't free.
Uk is ranked 18th in best health care in the EU reported by WHO.
As for benefits cannot find figures other than the uk. But it seems the UK is the easiest to obtain. Other countries require you to work or need to qualify for many months. So I wouldn't say it's the best. It's probably the easiest if that is what they are looking for.
Other EU countries offer higher family benefits than the uk.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html
18th in the world, rather than EU "
Good point. I misread the table. 15th in Europe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This answers why migrants choose the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html"
Oops. We sourced the sane article.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"We are the furthest away , you have to go thru several countries to get here !
Are the other country's that bad ?
Or is the U K simply the best country to live in ?
Discuss "
As I mentioned yesterday on the Calais Jungle thread, according to the migration observatory only 3% of claims made in the EU, Switzerland and Norway are made in the UK. So 97% are claiming asylum elsewhere.
My question would be why is the UK public perception of immigration so much higher than the reality? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We are the furthest away , you have to go thru several countries to get here !
Are the other country's that bad ?
Or is the U K simply the best country to live in ?
Discuss
As I mentioned yesterday on the Calais Jungle thread, according to the migration observatory only 3% of claims made in the EU, Switzerland and Norway are made in the UK. So 97% are claiming asylum elsewhere.
My question would be why is the UK public perception of immigration so much higher than the reality? "
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped."
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
"
Add EU numbers to that and my figure was correct
It's amazing that you feel everybody is entitled to just come and live here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
"
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Technology and government is changing our culture more than migrants.
New generations with their heads down looking at their phones.
Culture changes naturally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture."
3000 people migrated to Glasgow out of 600,000. If they can destroy a culture, then the culture is weak to begin with (sarcasm). Which I doubt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We are the furthest away , you have to go thru several countries to get here !
Are the other country's that bad ?
Or is the U K simply the best country to live in ?
Discuss
As I mentioned yesterday on the Calais Jungle thread, according to the migration observatory only 3% of claims made in the EU, Switzerland and Norway are made in the UK. So 97% are claiming asylum elsewhere.
My question would be why is the UK public perception of immigration so much higher than the reality?
Try spending some time in shitty sparkbrook in brum, any where you like in Luton or Oldham, it's full off shite from the Asian sub continent, claiming free boilers along with anything else they can get for free
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I lived in Luton 10 years ago and been recently. Nothing changed. It hasn't dramatically changed in a single year.
Is it because they're poor? Do you at least like the rich asian?
Some people in Amsterdam believe Brits are d*unks and stupid. Doesn't mean it's true. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We are the furthest away , you have to go thru several countries to get here !
Are the other country's that bad ?
Or is the U K simply the best country to live in ?
Discuss "
One family in the paper this week have seven children , have never worked , are complaining about the size of their council house and are threating to sue the council using legal aid. They can of course afford sky tv and lots of childrens games all paid by the tax payer .
In a recent survey at least 25 % of people said that they would be willing to pay extra tax to stop immigration.
If we refused to oay any benefits the problem would be quickly resolved .
The current benefits are too high as they still send money home to their families . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
"
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ?
I think a lot of it is that they are spoon fed the idea that the UK is the land of milk and honey and that all of thier problems will just go away.
Just like back in the days when Kids used to run away to London to seek thier fortune because they never knew any better.
This is my understanding.
They probably don't have great access to information and have to go on what they are told. Britain has the reputation. I think they dramatically over-estimate what they will be able to buy in Britain for those benefits!!
£71 a week - can't eat in a restaurant for that!
"
Plus housing benefit and lots of other benefits . In any event regardless of the amount it still costs tax payers money . In some cases it can be up to £35000 per annum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Simply because the system is more efficient at paying out and paying more to immigrants. Yet work hard and pay tax when you really need help and are dealing with cancer they say no! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools. "
I have experienced experienced problems with housing, health and schools.
Housing, because banks loaned too much and the financial crash ruined my chances to get a house.
NHS because of poorly managed system, inefficiencies etc.
School because of the demand of secondary school teachers and having bad teachers cone through the system and then caring about numbers and not the quality of education.
None of my experience has been because of immigration. Our population has the ability to grow since we are able to reproduce. So our system should be able to handle it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"We are the furthest away , you have to go thru several countries to get here !
Are the other country's that bad ?
Or is the U K simply the best country to live in ?
Discuss One family in the paper this week have seven children , have never worked , are complaining about the size of their council house and are threating to sue the council using legal aid. They can of course afford sky tv and lots of childrens games all paid by the tax payer .
In a recent survey at least 25 % of people said that they would be willing to pay extra tax to stop immigration.
If we refused to oay any benefits the problem would be quickly resolved .
The current benefits are too high as they still send money home to their families ."
Well that family won't be non-EU immigrants because they would have no recourse to public funds.
That family also won't be EU immigrants because if they werent exercising their treaty rights (by working), after 6 months they would be sent home.
So it sounds like you are using a British family playing the system to complain about foreign immigration. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ?
I think a lot of it is that they are spoon fed the idea that the UK is the land of milk and honey and that all of thier problems will just go away.
Just like back in the days when Kids used to run away to London to seek thier fortune because they never knew any better.
This is my understanding.
They probably don't have great access to information and have to go on what they are told. Britain has the reputation. I think they dramatically over-estimate what they will be able to buy in Britain for those benefits!!
£71 a week - can't eat in a restaurant for that!
Plus housing benefit and lots of other benefits . In any event regardless of the amount it still costs tax payers money . In some cases it can be up to £35000 per annum. "
Where in the country do you get 35k in benefits? In London as a single person you need 70k to have a comfortable life. Many can live on less. As a family of 7 in London you need much more than 100k. Was it a couple? Then split it per adult.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Simply because the system is more efficient at paying out and paying more to immigrants. Yet work hard and pay tax when you really need help and are dealing with cancer they say no! "
Please can you give a single demonstrable example at how it is more efficient for immigrants than it is for British people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture."
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We are the furthest away , you have to go thru several countries to get here !
Are the other country's that bad ?
Or is the U K simply the best country to live in ?
Discuss One family in the paper this week have seven children , have never worked , are complaining about the size of their council house and are threating to sue the council using legal aid. They can of course afford sky tv and lots of childrens games all paid by the tax payer .
In a recent survey at least 25 % of people said that they would be willing to pay extra tax to stop immigration.
If we refused to oay any benefits the problem would be quickly resolved .
The current benefits are too high as they still send money home to their families .
Well that family won't be non-EU immigrants because they would have no recourse to public funds.
That family also won't be EU immigrants because if they werent exercising their treaty rights (by working), after 6 months they would be sent home.
So it sounds like you are using a British family playing the system to complain about foreign immigration. "
Nice to see the article. I seen many similar ones but they were British families. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ?
By the way, free health in France. Although I'm not sure it's still free. Here in the Netherlands we pay insurance, but I get seen by a specialist within a week, never wait longer than 15 minutes and out straight away. "
1. No; not free health care in France; you pay, then get reimbursed 70%. Once you are " on the system" you don't pay the 70.%; but to get on the system you have to be a registered resident for a period of time; have a job and be paying social security ( at 8% of your income).
If you are unemployed you have to register , and be actively looking for work, unless you can prove that you are to sick to work or disabled.
You have to have your " rights" to healthcare reevaluated every year.
Same applies to all other benefits .
Real refugees are under a separate system ( I mean REAL refugees )
It's much the same in other EU countries: certainly Italy and Germany. It's difficult to get. Plus for employment, you need at least a rudimentary knowledge of the language .
The U.K. Is one of the few countries that provides healthcare totally free, with no checks on status or entitlement, and benefits at virtually the drop of a hat with minimal requirements to be proved.
If the UK had conformed to the standard EU terms for providing benefits and health, it would be a far less appealing place to come.
I have worked with people in Eastern Europe, Africa, Middle East; trained, qualified, skilled people will go to France, Germany, Itsky etc as well as UK because they can be employed.
The unskilled will always go for UK because they know they will be looked after there, but that they will get short shrift in the other countries without having employability and skills. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture.
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain? "
Last time l checked the stats emigration has been lower than immigration for decades. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture.
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain?
Last time l checked the stats emigration has been lower than immigration for decades."
But you say that people coming to this country destroy our culture, so surely British people going to other countries destroys their culture? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture.
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain?
Last time l checked the stats emigration has been lower than immigration for decades.
But you say that people coming to this country destroy our culture, so surely British people going to other countries destroys their culture?"
Maybe so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture.
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain?
Last time l checked the stats emigration has been lower than immigration for decades.
But you say that people coming to this country destroy our culture, so surely British people going to other countries destroys their culture?
Maybe so."
So should we allow this cultural destruction to continue, or should we stop British people from leaving? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools. "
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture.
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain?
Last time l checked the stats emigration has been lower than immigration for decades.
But you say that people coming to this country destroy our culture, so surely British people going to other countries destroys their culture?
Maybe so.
So should we allow this cultural destruction to continue, or should we stop British people from leaving? "
You can't stop people leaving: that's imprisonment. We can stop them entering. There are millions of people here that have zero English skills it's a joke. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers. "
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We should ask the French and Germans and Italians to explain why very few migrants want to stay in Thier country's ?
By the way, free health in France. Although I'm not sure it's still free. Here in the Netherlands we pay insurance, but I get seen by a specialist within a week, never wait longer than 15 minutes and out straight away.
1. No; not free health care in France; you pay, then get reimbursed 70%. Once you are " on the system" you don't pay the 70.%; but to get on the system you have to be a registered resident for a period of time; have a job and be paying social security ( at 8% of your income).
If you are unemployed you have to register , and be actively looking for work, unless you can prove that you are to sick to work or disabled.
You have to have your " rights" to healthcare reevaluated every year.
Same applies to all other benefits .
Real refugees are under a separate system ( I mean REAL refugees )
It's much the same in other EU countries: certainly Italy and Germany. It's difficult to get. Plus for employment, you need at least a rudimentary knowledge of the language .
The U.K. Is one of the few countries that provides healthcare totally free, with no checks on status or entitlement, and benefits at virtually the drop of a hat with minimal requirements to be proved.
If the UK had conformed to the standard EU terms for providing benefits and health, it would be a far less appealing place to come.
I have worked with people in Eastern Europe, Africa, Middle East; trained, qualified, skilled people will go to France, Germany, Itsky etc as well as UK because they can be employed.
The unskilled will always go for UK because they know they will be looked after there, but that they will get short shrift in the other countries without having employability and skills."
I didn't how the health care in France worked exactly. Thanks for the insight.
Here you pay 80 euros a month per adult. GP and emergency covered. But you get a risk of 300 euros. So medicines that are more covered or hospital visit you may have to pay. At most 300 euros a year. But if you're healthy it's cheap. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too."
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands. "
Not its not. You are basically describing a pyramid scheme in which we need to import an ever increasing number of migrants to pay for the previous ones, each subsequent migration larger than the last. It doesn't work. We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture.
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain?
Last time l checked the stats emigration has been lower than immigration for decades.
But you say that people coming to this country destroy our culture, so surely British people going to other countries destroys their culture?
Maybe so.
So should we allow this cultural destruction to continue, or should we stop British people from leaving?
You can't stop people leaving: that's imprisonment. We can stop them entering. There are millions of people here that have zero English skills it's a joke."
You can stop people from leaving, its called exit controls, not imprisonment. There are many countries around the world that limit their citizens from leaving the country.
I don't really understand how you can believe that immigration destroys our culture, yet think that British people should be free to destroy the cultures of other countries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too."
Then is the tax system bad?
I already pay in the 52% tax band in the Netherlands. I'm forced to pay basic pension which gets me 75% of my wage when I retire. I can go private too to get more. Pension companies use risk to pay itself. Not all retiring OAPs live the full pension term. Others live longer and it balances itself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands. "
And the bet contribution of migrant is misleading. Some say they are a net contribution but others say otherwise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Then is the tax system bad?
I already pay in the 52% tax band in the Netherlands. I'm forced to pay basic pension which gets me 75% of my wage when I retire. I can go private too to get more. Pension companies use risk to pay itself. Not all retiring OAPs live the full pension term. Others live longer and it balances itself."
The tax system could be better but what need to stop is the mass low skilled migration to our nation. That is what is hurting the poorest people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
Not its not. You are basically describing a pyramid scheme in which we need to import an ever increasing number of migrants to pay for the previous ones, each subsequent migration larger than the last. It doesn't work. We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
"
The statement was that immigrants have caused (past tense) a strain on public services. There is no great wave of immigration that is readily aging in this country. You're conflating things that may or may not happen in the future, with things that have happened now.
At this point in time, the immigrants that are here have put more tax into the system than they have taken out. The services they use are funded by tax. Therefore, the shittiness of the services cannot be due to having too many immigrants using them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
And the bet contribution of migrant is misleading. Some say they are a net contribution but others say otherwise."
No, we went through this in great detail on another thread. Multiple studies, including the treasury (who should know) have confirmed a net contribution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture.
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain?
Last time l checked the stats emigration has been lower than immigration for decades.
But you say that people coming to this country destroy our culture, so surely British people going to other countries destroys their culture?
Maybe so.
So should we allow this cultural destruction to continue, or should we stop British people from leaving?
You can't stop people leaving: that's imprisonment. We can stop them entering. There are millions of people here that have zero English skills it's a joke.
You can stop people from leaving, its called exit controls, not imprisonment. There are many countries around the world that limit their citizens from leaving the country.
I don't really understand how you can believe that immigration destroys our culture, yet think that British people should be free to destroy the cultures of other countries. "
Who has exit controls? Which nations? Small poor ones I assume, trying to prevent Brain Drain. It doesn't work like that for us.
You can only control what happens here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture.
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain? "
Yes , why not ?
I'd be happy for it to work both ways , especially as the Brits leaving are usually the hard working decent one s ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
"
I agree to this point.
But what is native British? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture.
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain?
Yes , why not ?
I'd be happy for it to work both ways , especially as the Brits leaving are usually the hard working decent one s !"
So the list of countries with emigration controls would go, Cuba, North Korea, Britain... see anything wrong with that picture? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
Not its not. You are basically describing a pyramid scheme in which we need to import an ever increasing number of migrants to pay for the previous ones, each subsequent migration larger than the last. It doesn't work. We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
The statement was that immigrants have caused (past tense) a strain on public services. There is no great wave of immigration that is readily aging in this country. You're conflating things that may or may not happen in the future, with things that have happened now.
At this point in time, the immigrants that are here have put more tax into the system than they have taken out. The services they use are funded by tax. Therefore, the shittiness of the services cannot be due to having too many immigrants using them. "
That's just not true. There are a finite number of houses and skilled people used to run the services. You are assuming that migrants that come are mostly doctors and nurses and scientists etc. They are not, most are low skilled labour. The ratio is what matters. The increase in skilled people doesn't correspond to the increase in the number of people using the services here. Tax is just money. It's still up for debate whether they do contribute negatively or positively money wise. Some studies show both
The biggest worry is the fact that is pushed other into unemployment and they use services to survive. Domino effect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
What is the number of total people arriving here. It's destroying our culture.
Do you think that British people should be stopped from leaving the UK so as not to destroy the cultures of other countries? Especially in places with high numbers of Brits such as Spain?
Yes , why not ?
I'd be happy for it to work both ways , especially as the Brits leaving are usually the hard working decent one s !
So the list of countries with emigration controls would go, Cuba, North Korea, Britain... see anything wrong with that picture? "
Lol we yes ! Fair play you caught me out there !  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Who has exit controls? Which nations? Small poor ones I assume, trying to prevent Brain Drain. It doesn't work like that for us.
You can only control what happens here. "
I know US citizens continue to pay tax after they leave the US. Although I don't know to what extent. Can anyone enlighten us on the US tax system? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British? "
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
Not its not. You are basically describing a pyramid scheme in which we need to import an ever increasing number of migrants to pay for the previous ones, each subsequent migration larger than the last. It doesn't work. We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
The statement was that immigrants have caused (past tense) a strain on public services. There is no great wave of immigration that is readily aging in this country. You're conflating things that may or may not happen in the future, with things that have happened now.
At this point in time, the immigrants that are here have put more tax into the system than they have taken out. The services they use are funded by tax. Therefore, the shittiness of the services cannot be due to having too many immigrants using them.
That's just not true. There are a finite number of houses and skilled people used to run the services. You are assuming that migrants that come are mostly doctors and nurses and scientists etc. They are not, most are low skilled labour. The ratio is what matters. The increase in skilled people doesn't correspond to the increase in the number of people using the services here. Tax is just money. It's still up for debate whether they do contribute negatively or positively money wise. Some studies show both
The biggest worry is the fact that is pushed other into unemployment and they use services to survive. Domino effect. "
Well you've shown the route of your misunderstanding. You're working on some kind of malthusian logic mixed with zero sum economics. Both are false dichotomies by the way.
There is no inherent limit on houses, schools or hospitals. Not one that we are remotely close to anyway. The entire world's population could live in Texas if they were willing to live in New York style housing. What you mean is that we can't all live in 2 story houses with a nice view of a lake and fit into this country. Shit some people will have to live in flats. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services."
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens."
I doubt many Sikhs are direct descendants to people who have lived here for millennia |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't."
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
Not its not. You are basically describing a pyramid scheme in which we need to import an ever increasing number of migrants to pay for the previous ones, each subsequent migration larger than the last. It doesn't work. We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
The statement was that immigrants have caused (past tense) a strain on public services. There is no great wave of immigration that is readily aging in this country. You're conflating things that may or may not happen in the future, with things that have happened now.
At this point in time, the immigrants that are here have put more tax into the system than they have taken out. The services they use are funded by tax. Therefore, the shittiness of the services cannot be due to having too many immigrants using them.
That's just not true. There are a finite number of houses and skilled people used to run the services. You are assuming that migrants that come are mostly doctors and nurses and scientists etc. They are not, most are low skilled labour. The ratio is what matters. The increase in skilled people doesn't correspond to the increase in the number of people using the services here. Tax is just money. It's still up for debate whether they do contribute negatively or positively money wise. Some studies show both
The biggest worry is the fact that is pushed other into unemployment and they use services to survive. Domino effect.
Well you've shown the route of your misunderstanding. You're working on some kind of malthusian logic mixed with zero sum economics. Both are false dichotomies by the way.
There is no inherent limit on houses, schools or hospitals. Not one that we are remotely close to anyway. The entire world's population could live in Texas if they were willing to live in New York style housing. What you mean is that we can't all live in 2 story houses with a nice view of a lake and fit into this country. Shit some people will have to live in flats."
The logistics matter too. Sure there are enough bricks in the world to build as many houses as you want but there are too many moving parts, green belt laws, tax schemes, unions interests, big business interests and foreign billionaires who love to play with property.
You can't just buy service providers. They need to be trained and created. What is easier to create? A doctor? Or a patient? The other alternative to get service providers is quickly to Hoover up the best of the world's people. This is immoral to me too. Why do this? It's a circular, self induced problem. Why should we struggle to increase the services when all we have to do is reduce the numbers needing services. This country needs no more low skilled work. It really doesn't. 500 people wrestling for one job cleaning shitty toilets . When my dad was young and Glasgow had major ship building, he said there wasn't enough men for the work. No it's the reverse to an extreme. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? "
.
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
I doubt many Sikhs are direct descendants to people who have lived here for millennia"
Obviously |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? .
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart."
Bell curve of what... IQ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
Not its not. You are basically describing a pyramid scheme in which we need to import an ever increasing number of migrants to pay for the previous ones, each subsequent migration larger than the last. It doesn't work. We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
The statement was that immigrants have caused (past tense) a strain on public services. There is no great wave of immigration that is readily aging in this country. You're conflating things that may or may not happen in the future, with things that have happened now.
At this point in time, the immigrants that are here have put more tax into the system than they have taken out. The services they use are funded by tax. Therefore, the shittiness of the services cannot be due to having too many immigrants using them.
That's just not true. There are a finite number of houses and skilled people used to run the services. You are assuming that migrants that come are mostly doctors and nurses and scientists etc. They are not, most are low skilled labour. The ratio is what matters. The increase in skilled people doesn't correspond to the increase in the number of people using the services here. Tax is just money. It's still up for debate whether they do contribute negatively or positively money wise. Some studies show both
The biggest worry is the fact that is pushed other into unemployment and they use services to survive. Domino effect.
Well you've shown the route of your misunderstanding. You're working on some kind of malthusian logic mixed with zero sum economics. Both are false dichotomies by the way.
There is no inherent limit on houses, schools or hospitals. Not one that we are remotely close to anyway. The entire world's population could live in Texas if they were willing to live in New York style housing. What you mean is that we can't all live in 2 story houses with a nice view of a lake and fit into this country. Shit some people will have to live in flats.
The logistics matter too. Sure there are enough bricks in the world to build as many houses as you want but there are too many moving parts, green belt laws, tax schemes, unions interests, big business interests and foreign billionaires who love to play with property.
You can't just buy service providers. They need to be trained and created. What is easier to create? A doctor? Or a patient? The other alternative to get service providers is quickly to Hoover up the best of the world's people. This is immoral to me too. Why do this? It's a circular, self induced problem. Why should we struggle to increase the services when all we have to do is reduce the numbers needing services. This country needs no more low skilled work. It really doesn't. 500 people wrestling for one job cleaning shitty toilets . When my dad was young and Glasgow had major ship building, he said there wasn't enough men for the work. No it's the reverse to an extreme."
Yes Malthus was very concerned about logistics too, the only difference is that he was going into meltdown when the world's population was hitting 1bn and now it's 7bn. Like Marx, the great revolution / crisis never arrived.
At the end of the day, nobody ever got rich off protectionism or any form of it. China used to the be the richest country in the world, by far. It was so rich that it stopped taxing everyone for 3 years. The reason it ended up in famine was, in a nutshell, protectionism which was later mixed with communism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? .
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart.
Bell curve of what... IQ? "
Anything really IQ, aptitude to learning certain thing, effort. I could be wrong. It's just my ponderings |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
Not its not. You are basically describing a pyramid scheme in which we need to import an ever increasing number of migrants to pay for the previous ones, each subsequent migration larger than the last. It doesn't work. We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
The statement was that immigrants have caused (past tense) a strain on public services. There is no great wave of immigration that is readily aging in this country. You're conflating things that may or may not happen in the future, with things that have happened now.
At this point in time, the immigrants that are here have put more tax into the system than they have taken out. The services they use are funded by tax. Therefore, the shittiness of the services cannot be due to having too many immigrants using them.
That's just not true. There are a finite number of houses and skilled people used to run the services. You are assuming that migrants that come are mostly doctors and nurses and scientists etc. They are not, most are low skilled labour. The ratio is what matters. The increase in skilled people doesn't correspond to the increase in the number of people using the services here. Tax is just money. It's still up for debate whether they do contribute negatively or positively money wise. Some studies show both
The biggest worry is the fact that is pushed other into unemployment and they use services to survive. Domino effect.
Well you've shown the route of your misunderstanding. You're working on some kind of malthusian logic mixed with zero sum economics. Both are false dichotomies by the way.
There is no inherent limit on houses, schools or hospitals. Not one that we are remotely close to anyway. The entire world's population could live in Texas if they were willing to live in New York style housing. What you mean is that we can't all live in 2 story houses with a nice view of a lake and fit into this country. Shit some people will have to live in flats.
The logistics matter too. Sure there are enough bricks in the world to build as many houses as you want but there are too many moving parts, green belt laws, tax schemes, unions interests, big business interests and foreign billionaires who love to play with property.
You can't just buy service providers. They need to be trained and created. What is easier to create? A doctor? Or a patient? The other alternative to get service providers is quickly to Hoover up the best of the world's people. This is immoral to me too. Why do this? It's a circular, self induced problem. Why should we struggle to increase the services when all we have to do is reduce the numbers needing services. This country needs no more low skilled work. It really doesn't. 500 people wrestling for one job cleaning shitty toilets . When my dad was young and Glasgow had major ship building, he said there wasn't enough men for the work. No it's the reverse to an extreme.
Yes Malthus was very concerned about logistics too, the only difference is that he was going into meltdown when the world's population was hitting 1bn and now it's 7bn. Like Marx, the great revolution / crisis never arrived.
At the end of the day, nobody ever got rich off protectionism or any form of it. China used to the be the richest country in the world, by far. It was so rich that it stopped taxing everyone for 3 years. The reason it ended up in famine was, in a nutshell, protectionism which was later mixed with communism. "
We could talk about communism and capitalism next time I do enjoy chatting with you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
Not its not. You are basically describing a pyramid scheme in which we need to import an ever increasing number of migrants to pay for the previous ones, each subsequent migration larger than the last. It doesn't work. We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
The statement was that immigrants have caused (past tense) a strain on public services. There is no great wave of immigration that is readily aging in this country. You're conflating things that may or may not happen in the future, with things that have happened now.
At this point in time, the immigrants that are here have put more tax into the system than they have taken out. The services they use are funded by tax. Therefore, the shittiness of the services cannot be due to having too many immigrants using them.
That's just not true. There are a finite number of houses and skilled people used to run the services. You are assuming that migrants that come are mostly doctors and nurses and scientists etc. They are not, most are low skilled labour. The ratio is what matters. The increase in skilled people doesn't correspond to the increase in the number of people using the services here. Tax is just money. It's still up for debate whether they do contribute negatively or positively money wise. Some studies show both
The biggest worry is the fact that is pushed other into unemployment and they use services to survive. Domino effect.
Well you've shown the route of your misunderstanding. You're working on some kind of malthusian logic mixed with zero sum economics. Both are false dichotomies by the way.
There is no inherent limit on houses, schools or hospitals. Not one that we are remotely close to anyway. The entire world's population could live in Texas if they were willing to live in New York style housing. What you mean is that we can't all live in 2 story houses with a nice view of a lake and fit into this country. Shit some people will have to live in flats.
The logistics matter too. Sure there are enough bricks in the world to build as many houses as you want but there are too many moving parts, green belt laws, tax schemes, unions interests, big business interests and foreign billionaires who love to play with property.
You can't just buy service providers. They need to be trained and created. What is easier to create? A doctor? Or a patient? The other alternative to get service providers is quickly to Hoover up the best of the world's people. This is immoral to me too. Why do this? It's a circular, self induced problem. Why should we struggle to increase the services when all we have to do is reduce the numbers needing services. This country needs no more low skilled work. It really doesn't. 500 people wrestling for one job cleaning shitty toilets . When my dad was young and Glasgow had major ship building, he said there wasn't enough men for the work. No it's the reverse to an extreme.
Yes Malthus was very concerned about logistics too, the only difference is that he was going into meltdown when the world's population was hitting 1bn and now it's 7bn. Like Marx, the great revolution / crisis never arrived.
At the end of the day, nobody ever got rich off protectionism or any form of it. China used to the be the richest country in the world, by far. It was so rich that it stopped taxing everyone for 3 years. The reason it ended up in famine was, in a nutshell, protectionism which was later mixed with communism.
We could talk about communism and capitalism next time I do enjoy chatting with you."
You know one of us is an immigrant right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
Not its not. You are basically describing a pyramid scheme in which we need to import an ever increasing number of migrants to pay for the previous ones, each subsequent migration larger than the last. It doesn't work. We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
The statement was that immigrants have caused (past tense) a strain on public services. There is no great wave of immigration that is readily aging in this country. You're conflating things that may or may not happen in the future, with things that have happened now.
At this point in time, the immigrants that are here have put more tax into the system than they have taken out. The services they use are funded by tax. Therefore, the shittiness of the services cannot be due to having too many immigrants using them.
That's just not true. There are a finite number of houses and skilled people used to run the services. You are assuming that migrants that come are mostly doctors and nurses and scientists etc. They are not, most are low skilled labour. The ratio is what matters. The increase in skilled people doesn't correspond to the increase in the number of people using the services here. Tax is just money. It's still up for debate whether they do contribute negatively or positively money wise. Some studies show both
The biggest worry is the fact that is pushed other into unemployment and they use services to survive. Domino effect.
Well you've shown the route of your misunderstanding. You're working on some kind of malthusian logic mixed with zero sum economics. Both are false dichotomies by the way.
There is no inherent limit on houses, schools or hospitals. Not one that we are remotely close to anyway. The entire world's population could live in Texas if they were willing to live in New York style housing. What you mean is that we can't all live in 2 story houses with a nice view of a lake and fit into this country. Shit some people will have to live in flats.
The logistics matter too. Sure there are enough bricks in the world to build as many houses as you want but there are too many moving parts, green belt laws, tax schemes, unions interests, big business interests and foreign billionaires who love to play with property.
You can't just buy service providers. They need to be trained and created. What is easier to create? A doctor? Or a patient? The other alternative to get service providers is quickly to Hoover up the best of the world's people. This is immoral to me too. Why do this? It's a circular, self induced problem. Why should we struggle to increase the services when all we have to do is reduce the numbers needing services. This country needs no more low skilled work. It really doesn't. 500 people wrestling for one job cleaning shitty toilets . When my dad was young and Glasgow had major ship building, he said there wasn't enough men for the work. No it's the reverse to an extreme.
Yes Malthus was very concerned about logistics too, the only difference is that he was going into meltdown when the world's population was hitting 1bn and now it's 7bn. Like Marx, the great revolution / crisis never arrived.
At the end of the day, nobody ever got rich off protectionism or any form of it. China used to the be the richest country in the world, by far. It was so rich that it stopped taxing everyone for 3 years. The reason it ended up in famine was, in a nutshell, protectionism which was later mixed with communism.
We could talk about communism and capitalism next time I do enjoy chatting with you.
You know one of us is an immigrant right? "
Yes. I'm the great grandson of a refugee too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers. "
 What if the people referred to are not paying taxes. Maybe ask a Doctors receotionist . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? .
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart.
Bell curve of what... IQ?
Anything really IQ, aptitude to learning certain thing, effort. I could be wrong. It's just my ponderings"
IQ doesn't correlate with wealth much, except in a mid point. In other words, if your IQ is especially low then yes you'll probably struggle to get a job, but once you are above 85 then there's a bit of a correlation which evaporates after 130.
By definition, 100 IQ is average and you really don't need high IQ to do well financially. I have an average IQ but could never do the trades some people do with their hands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
And the bet contribution of migrant is misleading. Some say they are a net contribution but others say otherwise.
No, we went through this in great detail on another thread. Multiple studies, including the treasury (who should know) have confirmed a net contribution. "
I would not be confident tbat the treasury would know . They are unable to advise how many illegal immigrants are already here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers. What if the people referred to are not paying taxes. Maybe ask a Doctors receotionist ."
What if my aunt had bollucks? Then she'd be my uncle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
And the bet contribution of migrant is misleading. Some say they are a net contribution but others say otherwise.
No, we went through this in great detail on another thread. Multiple studies, including the treasury (who should know) have confirmed a net contribution. I would not be confident tbat the treasury would know . They are unable to advise how many illegal immigrants are already here."
That's the home offices job to know that, not the treasury. Got any more false dichotomies? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? .
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart.
Bell curve of what... IQ?
Anything really IQ, aptitude to learning certain thing, effort. I could be wrong. It's just my ponderings
IQ doesn't correlate with wealth much, except in a mid point. In other words, if your IQ is especially low then yes you'll probably struggle to get a job, but once you are above 85 then there's a bit of a correlation which evaporates after 130.
By definition, 100 IQ is average and you really don't need high IQ to do well financially. I have an average IQ but could never do the trades some people do with their hands."
I never knew that.
Andy Warhol had a lower IQ apparently and he was extremely successful. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We are the furthest away , you have to go thru several countries to get here !
Are the other country's that bad ?
Or is the U K simply the best country to live in ?
Discuss One family in the paper this week have seven children , have never worked , are complaining about the size of their council house and are threating to sue the council using legal aid. They can of course afford sky tv and lots of childrens games all paid by the tax payer .
In a recent survey at least 25 % of people said that they would be willing to pay extra tax to stop immigration.
If we refused to oay any benefits the problem would be quickly resolved .
The current benefits are too high as they still send money home to their families .
Well that family won't be non-EU immigrants because they would have no recourse to public funds.
That family also won't be EU immigrants because if they werent exercising their treaty rights (by working), after 6 months they would be sent home.
So it sounds like you are using a British family playing the system to complain about foreign immigration. "
From memory the family are from Cameroon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? .
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart.
Bell curve of what... IQ?
Anything really IQ, aptitude to learning certain thing, effort. I could be wrong. It's just my ponderings
IQ doesn't correlate with wealth much, except in a mid point. In other words, if your IQ is especially low then yes you'll probably struggle to get a job, but once you are above 85 then there's a bit of a correlation which evaporates after 130.
By definition, 100 IQ is average and you really don't need high IQ to do well financially. I have an average IQ but could never do the trades some people do with their hands.
I never knew that.
Andy Warhol had a lower IQ apparently and he was extremely successful."
Completely anecdotal, but all the most successful people from my university are the ones who got 2:1's rather than 1st class degrees. I think there is some supporting research (but I haven't honestly read it).
Basically, education isn't a perfect measure of IQ and IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence. Education is more a measure of how well you perform in a highly structured environment. You need people who can function in a highly structured environment (i.e turn up to work on time) but not people that can't function without it. The world of work just isn't as structured as the world of education so those with the super duper IQs rarely translate it into above average wealth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? .
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart.
Bell curve of what... IQ?
Anything really IQ, aptitude to learning certain thing, effort. I could be wrong. It's just my ponderings
IQ doesn't correlate with wealth much, except in a mid point. In other words, if your IQ is especially low then yes you'll probably struggle to get a job, but once you are above 85 then there's a bit of a correlation which evaporates after 130.
By definition, 100 IQ is average and you really don't need high IQ to do well financially. I have an average IQ but could never do the trades some people do with their hands.
I never knew that.
Andy Warhol had a lower IQ apparently and he was extremely successful.
Completely anecdotal, but all the most successful people from my university are the ones who got 2:1's rather than 1st class degrees. I think there is some supporting research (but I haven't honestly read it).
Basically, education isn't a perfect measure of IQ and IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence. Education is more a measure of how well you perform in a highly structured environment. You need people who can function in a highly structured environment (i.e turn up to work on time) but not people that can't function without it. The world of work just isn't as structured as the world of education so those with the super duper IQs rarely translate it into above average wealth. "
Often the smartest folk don't seem do as well in my experience. Success seems to require many ingredients. Pretty interesting.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
And the bet contribution of migrant is misleading. Some say they are a net contribution but others say otherwise.
No, we went through this in great detail on another thread. Multiple studies, including the treasury (who should know) have confirmed a net contribution. I would not be confident tbat the treasury would know . They are unable to advise how many illegal immigrants are already here.
That's the home offices job to know that, not the treasury. Got any more false dichotomies? "
Hardly false as they are both government departments . I expect the figures to be known regardless of which department they come from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? .
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart.
Bell curve of what... IQ?
Anything really IQ, aptitude to learning certain thing, effort. I could be wrong. It's just my ponderings
IQ doesn't correlate with wealth much, except in a mid point. In other words, if your IQ is especially low then yes you'll probably struggle to get a job, but once you are above 85 then there's a bit of a correlation which evaporates after 130.
By definition, 100 IQ is average and you really don't need high IQ to do well financially. I have an average IQ but could never do the trades some people do with their hands.
I never knew that.
Andy Warhol had a lower IQ apparently and he was extremely successful.
Completely anecdotal, but all the most successful people from my university are the ones who got 2:1's rather than 1st class degrees. I think there is some supporting research (but I haven't honestly read it).
Basically, education isn't a perfect measure of IQ and IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence. Education is more a measure of how well you perform in a highly structured environment. You need people who can function in a highly structured environment (i.e turn up to work on time) but not people that can't function without it. The world of work just isn't as structured as the world of education so those with the super duper IQs rarely translate it into above average wealth.
Often the smartest folk don't seem do as well in my experience. Success seems to require many ingredients. Pretty interesting.
"
I see that too. Success depends on the environment. A superstar can we brilliant in a team. Pick him out and drop him in another team and you may see him fail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Real refugees will tend to seek asylum closer to home....as they would like to go back at some point.
Calais is full of "economic migrants".... Who have paid smugglers often thousands of pounds to get here. They would get kicked back if they applied in France, because they don't mess about. They apply here because for years we have not just been seen as, but actually are, a soft touch. They can be here, on benefits and provided with accommodation, for years while things are processed. Meanwhile they can disappear into the huge "black economy".
Add to this that most of them probably have English as a second language. There are many things drawing them here.....too many things? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
It isn't. We know that there are hundreds of thousands coming here. It should be stopped.
187,000 non EU migrants in 2014. Only 1.8 hundreds of thousands.
Migration is much higher than asylum entries.
But in the end, if you look at the percentage of the population it's less than 1% of the total population in the UK. Not high as people perceive it.
Media is to blame.
It looks like you have not experienced the problems immigration has caused with housing , the health service , and schools.
Because they haven't caused any. It's impossible for tax payers funded services to be strained by having too many tax payers.
Disengenuous point. Not all tax payers are equal and we have an aging population in a society that has no pension fund. I'll let you in on a secret: immigrants get old too.
Irrelevant. Unless immigrants as a group make a negative tax contribution, which they don't, then the point stands.
And the bet contribution of migrant is misleading. Some say they are a net contribution but others say otherwise.
No, we went through this in great detail on another thread. Multiple studies, including the treasury (who should know) have confirmed a net contribution. I would not be confident tbat the treasury would know . They are unable to advise how many illegal immigrants are already here.
That's the home offices job to know that, not the treasury. Got any more false dichotomies? Hardly false as they are both government departments . I expect the figures to be known regardless of which department they come from."
Your arguement is that the treasuries figures on tax revenue aren't credible because the treasury don't know how many illegal immigrants there are in the UK. It's not their job to know how many illegal immigrants there are so you can't use that as a point to discredit their tax revenue figures.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
"
It sounds like neither of you want people of colour to have jobs  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
It sounds like neither of you want people of colour to have jobs "
Errrr ? I haven't seen many Sikhs ? Have you ?
I also think All former Gurkhas and Family should be allowed to live here too ! Don't think they are white either ? Do you ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? .
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart.
Bell curve of what... IQ?
Anything really IQ, aptitude to learning certain thing, effort. I could be wrong. It's just my ponderings
IQ doesn't correlate with wealth much, except in a mid point. In other words, if your IQ is especially low then yes you'll probably struggle to get a job, but once you are above 85 then there's a bit of a correlation which evaporates after 130.
By definition, 100 IQ is average and you really don't need high IQ to do well financially. I have an average IQ but could never do the trades some people do with their hands.
I never knew that.
Andy Warhol had a lower IQ apparently and he was extremely successful.
Completely anecdotal, but all the most successful people from my university are the ones who got 2:1's rather than 1st class degrees. I think there is some supporting research (but I haven't honestly read it).
Basically, education isn't a perfect measure of IQ and IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence. Education is more a measure of how well you perform in a highly structured environment. You need people who can function in a highly structured environment (i.e turn up to work on time) but not people that can't function without it. The world of work just isn't as structured as the world of education so those with the super duper IQs rarely translate it into above average wealth.
Often the smartest folk don't seem do as well in my experience. Success seems to require many ingredients. Pretty interesting.
"
Educational and learning theory these days focuses on growth mind set as a key indicator of success as society is changing so much that skills need to be transferable and the best skills are those linked to learning to learn. These will help children, as children and as adults, survive and thrive in the future. Research has proved that the brain is elastic, akin to a muscle in some respects and can be trained. I know schools who are teaching metacognition and resilience to children as young as four and five. Intelligence isn't seen as fixed or innate in education these days, certainly in primary education. I have seen this in action and its fantastic as everyone is given a chance ... and it works. Pity it will take a good while for most adults to understand and assimilate it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
It sounds like neither of you want people of colour to have jobs
Errrr ? I haven't seen many Sikhs ? Have you ?
I also think All former Gurkhas and Family should be allowed to live here too ! Don't think they are white either ? Do you ? "
What planet are you on? Sikhs? There are plenty of English Sikhs.
Gurkhas: do try to keep up; They are allowed to live in UK after their military service with the British Army - if they retired from UK service after 1997 - even despite the fact that Nepal was never part of the British Empire, nor the Commonwealth, and has always been an independent country; and Gurkhas are actually, in legal terms, simply paid mercenaries.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? .
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart.
Bell curve of what... IQ?
Anything really IQ, aptitude to learning certain thing, effort. I could be wrong. It's just my ponderings
IQ doesn't correlate with wealth much, except in a mid point. In other words, if your IQ is especially low then yes you'll probably struggle to get a job, but once you are above 85 then there's a bit of a correlation which evaporates after 130.
By definition, 100 IQ is average and you really don't need high IQ to do well financially. I have an average IQ but could never do the trades some people do with their hands.
I never knew that.
Andy Warhol had a lower IQ apparently and he was extremely successful.
Completely anecdotal, but all the most successful people from my university are the ones who got 2:1's rather than 1st class degrees. I think there is some supporting research (but I haven't honestly read it).
Basically, education isn't a perfect measure of IQ and IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence. Education is more a measure of how well you perform in a highly structured environment. You need people who can function in a highly structured environment (i.e turn up to work on time) but not people that can't function without it. The world of work just isn't as structured as the world of education so those with the super duper IQs rarely translate it into above average wealth.
Often the smartest folk don't seem do as well in my experience. Success seems to require many ingredients. Pretty interesting.
Educational and learning theory these days focuses on growth mind set as a key indicator of success as society is changing so much that skills need to be transferable and the best skills are those linked to learning to learn. These will help children, as children and as adults, survive and thrive in the future. Research has proved that the brain is elastic, akin to a muscle in some respects and can be trained. I know schools who are teaching metacognition and resilience to children as young as four and five. Intelligence isn't seen as fixed or innate in education these days, certainly in primary education. I have seen this in action and its fantastic as everyone is given a chance ... and it works. Pity it will take a good while for most adults to understand and assimilate it. "
There's nothing you said that I disagree with, but I'm spectical how much of it is being done in schools today. My education was all about passing the exams, if it couldn't be measured in an exam then it didn't exist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another important factor to consider with immigration and public services is that we also rely on the skills of these immigrants to work in these services, doctors and nurses for example. Without immigration we would face a huge skills gap which would have an even greater impact on services.
Like l said, most immigrants are low skilled and directly compete with the unskilled British. To me, this is why middle class liberals love it. They benefit: most don't.
Maybe they should get some skills then instead of blaming the immigrants. A rich country has very little need for unskilled labour either way. As discussed, the country has free education so what's the excuse for not having any skills? .
The excuse for not having any skills is the bell curve. Not everyone is smart.
Bell curve of what... IQ?
Anything really IQ, aptitude to learning certain thing, effort. I could be wrong. It's just my ponderings
IQ doesn't correlate with wealth much, except in a mid point. In other words, if your IQ is especially low then yes you'll probably struggle to get a job, but once you are above 85 then there's a bit of a correlation which evaporates after 130.
By definition, 100 IQ is average and you really don't need high IQ to do well financially. I have an average IQ but could never do the trades some people do with their hands.
I never knew that.
Andy Warhol had a lower IQ apparently and he was extremely successful.
Completely anecdotal, but all the most successful people from my university are the ones who got 2:1's rather than 1st class degrees. I think there is some supporting research (but I haven't honestly read it).
Basically, education isn't a perfect measure of IQ and IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence. Education is more a measure of how well you perform in a highly structured environment. You need people who can function in a highly structured environment (i.e turn up to work on time) but not people that can't function without it. The world of work just isn't as structured as the world of education so those with the super duper IQs rarely translate it into above average wealth.
Often the smartest folk don't seem do as well in my experience. Success seems to require many ingredients. Pretty interesting.
Educational and learning theory these days focuses on growth mind set as a key indicator of success as society is changing so much that skills need to be transferable and the best skills are those linked to learning to learn. These will help children, as children and as adults, survive and thrive in the future. Research has proved that the brain is elastic, akin to a muscle in some respects and can be trained. I know schools who are teaching metacognition and resilience to children as young as four and five. Intelligence isn't seen as fixed or innate in education these days, certainly in primary education. I have seen this in action and its fantastic as everyone is given a chance ... and it works. Pity it will take a good while for most adults to understand and assimilate it.
There's nothing you said that I disagree with, but I'm spectical how much of it is being done in schools today. My education was all about passing the exams, if it couldn't be measured in an exam then it didn't exist. "
Research shows it helps children encounter and pass exams which indeed is what the system is all about. Such is life as tests still permeate, be it a driving test or a test for a professional qualification. There is a tension, certainly by GCSE in how success is measured, especially now it is all exam based at that level. The teaching is widespread and embedded in many London schools certainly, although I can't speak for much of the rest of the country, parents may have heard about it as BLP. It does take time to permeate up, and of course SATs exams do indeed run contrary to this thinking, especially by ranking pupils nationally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
It sounds like neither of you want people of colour to have jobs
Errrr ? I haven't seen many Sikhs ? Have you ?
I also think All former Gurkhas and Family should be allowed to live here too ! Don't think they are white either ? Do you ?
What planet are you on? Sikhs? There are plenty of English Sikhs.
Gurkhas: do try to keep up; They are allowed to live in UK after their military service with the British Army - if they retired from UK service after 1997 - even despite the fact that Nepal was never part of the British Empire, nor the Commonwealth, and has always been an independent country; and Gurkhas are actually, in legal terms, simply paid mercenaries.
"
He agreed with you
....Sikhs aren't white. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
It sounds like neither of you want people of colour to have jobs
Errrr ? I haven't seen many Sikhs ? Have you ?
I also think All former Gurkhas and Family should be allowed to live here too ! Don't think they are white either ? Do you ? "
Then why are you giving a thumbs up to a comment about the need to employ more "native British" that defines them as people who have "lived here for millennia"
Employing more "native British" would mean employing less people of colour would it not? Or are you talking about a job creation scheme, but only allowing "native British" to apply for those jobs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Research shows it helps children encounter and pass exams which indeed is what the system is all about. Such is life as tests still permeate, be it a driving test or a test for a professional qualification. There is a tension, certainly by GCSE in how success is measured, especially now it is all exam based at that level. The teaching is widespread and embedded in many London schools certainly, although I can't speak for much of the rest of the country, parents may have heard about it as BLP. It does take time to permeate up, and of course SATs exams do indeed run contrary to this thinking, especially by ranking pupils nationally. "
Did you see the C4 documentary where a UK school adopted Chinese teaching methods for a while? If so, what did you think of it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
It sounds like neither of you want people of colour to have jobs
Errrr ? I haven't seen many Sikhs ? Have you ?
I also think All former Gurkhas and Family should be allowed to live here too ! Don't think they are white either ? Do you ?
What planet are you on? Sikhs? There are plenty of English Sikhs.
Gurkhas: do try to keep up; They are allowed to live in UK after their military service with the British Army - if they retired from UK service after 1997 - even despite the fact that Nepal was never part of the British Empire, nor the Commonwealth, and has always been an independent country; and Gurkhas are actually, in legal terms, simply paid mercenaries.
"
I miss typed ! I meant I haven't seen many White Sikhs ! Wether the Gurkas are paid mercenaries or not , they fought for the U K when we wanted them to , so we should look after them properly , as we should the Afghan interpretaters and Thier family's .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Research shows it helps children encounter and pass exams which indeed is what the system is all about. Such is life as tests still permeate, be it a driving test or a test for a professional qualification. There is a tension, certainly by GCSE in how success is measured, especially now it is all exam based at that level. The teaching is widespread and embedded in many London schools certainly, although I can't speak for much of the rest of the country, parents may have heard about it as BLP. It does take time to permeate up, and of course SATs exams do indeed run contrary to this thinking, especially by ranking pupils nationally.
Did you see the C4 documentary where a UK school adopted Chinese teaching methods for a while? If so, what did you think of it? "
I didn't see it but I have been trained in shanghai teaching methods for maths and, given some adaptation for our cultural differences, its a refreshing attitude to how children can learn. Its a big overhaul and change in mind set but has had outstanding results, especially for those children who would have been deemed as 'lower ability' in the past. We have a much broader spread of pupils in our classrooms, catering for all, here in the UK, which is one difference. Other difference include how the authority figure of the teacher is held (in respect or not) and the involvement of parents in terms of homework ... these are major differences which have to be considered to make it work in the realities of our education system. It is an interesting balance to get it right, for all children, and once which many are engaged in on going dialogue about. The new curriculum places a much higher demand on all, including all pupils progressing together at broadly the same pace. Its a good leftie idea, so I like it. I think there is conflict as children get older as it becomes about grades then. But, as with anything, its taking money, investment, training to get the system right for us in Britain. One further point on migrants, we have loads in our classrooms and they are not the issue in terms of 'closing the gap' as they often catch up quickly, even without additional support as many parents are well-educated, have skills and aspirations for their parents. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
It sounds like neither of you want people of colour to have jobs
Errrr ? I haven't seen many Sikhs ? Have you ?
I also think All former Gurkhas and Family should be allowed to live here too ! Don't think they are white either ? Do you ?
Then why are you giving a thumbs up to a comment about the need to employ more "native British" that defines them as people who have "lived here for millennia"
Employing more "native British" would mean employing less people of colour would it not? Or are you talking about a job creation scheme, but only allowing "native British" to apply for those jobs? "
I was giving the thumbs up to the latter part that mentioned Sikhs !
I'm afraid if you think I'm Racist you are barking up the wrong tree
Tho I happily admit to been Right Wing |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Research shows it helps children encounter and pass exams which indeed is what the system is all about. Such is life as tests still permeate, be it a driving test or a test for a professional qualification. There is a tension, certainly by GCSE in how success is measured, especially now it is all exam based at that level. The teaching is widespread and embedded in many London schools certainly, although I can't speak for much of the rest of the country, parents may have heard about it as BLP. It does take time to permeate up, and of course SATs exams do indeed run contrary to this thinking, especially by ranking pupils nationally.
Did you see the C4 documentary where a UK school adopted Chinese teaching methods for a while? If so, what did you think of it?
I didn't see it but I have been trained in shanghai teaching methods for maths and, given some adaptation for our cultural differences, its a refreshing attitude to how children can learn. Its a big overhaul and change in mind set but has had outstanding results, especially for those children who would have been deemed as 'lower ability' in the past. We have a much broader spread of pupils in our classrooms, catering for all, here in the UK, which is one difference. Other difference include how the authority figure of the teacher is held (in respect or not) and the involvement of parents in terms of homework ... these are major differences which have to be considered to make it work in the realities of our education system. It is an interesting balance to get it right, for all children, and once which many are engaged in on going dialogue about. The new curriculum places a much higher demand on all, including all pupils progressing together at broadly the same pace. Its a good leftie idea, so I like it. I think there is conflict as children get older as it becomes about grades then. But, as with anything, its taking money, investment, training to get the system right for us in Britain. One further point on migrants, we have loads in our classrooms and they are not the issue in terms of 'closing the gap' as they often catch up quickly, even without additional support as many parents are well-educated, have skills and aspirations for their parents. "
* aspirations for their children
(a few other typos, but hopefully you get the gist) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
It sounds like neither of you want people of colour to have jobs
Errrr ? I haven't seen many Sikhs ? Have you ?
I also think All former Gurkhas and Family should be allowed to live here too ! Don't think they are white either ? Do you ?
Then why are you giving a thumbs up to a comment about the need to employ more "native British" that defines them as people who have "lived here for millennia"
Employing more "native British" would mean employing less people of colour would it not? Or are you talking about a job creation scheme, but only allowing "native British" to apply for those jobs?
I was giving the thumbs up to the latter part that mentioned Sikhs !
I'm afraid if you think I'm Racist you are barking up the wrong tree
Tho I happily admit to been Right Wing "
OK, well maybe the poster of the quoted thread can answer those questions then.
I find it strange that you and the other poster have singled Sikhs as being "absolutely British culturally”, when they are the only religious group (that I can think of) who have asked for, and got exemptions from legislation. For example S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site, and In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A "exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
It sounds like neither of you want people of colour to have jobs
Errrr ? I haven't seen many Sikhs ? Have you ?
I also think All former Gurkhas and Family should be allowed to live here too ! Don't think they are white either ? Do you ?
Then why are you giving a thumbs up to a comment about the need to employ more "native British" that defines them as people who have "lived here for millennia"
Employing more "native British" would mean employing less people of colour would it not? Or are you talking about a job creation scheme, but only allowing "native British" to apply for those jobs?
I was giving the thumbs up to the latter part that mentioned Sikhs !
I'm afraid if you think I'm Racist you are barking up the wrong tree
Tho I happily admit to been Right Wing
OK, well maybe the poster of the quoted thread can answer those questions then.
I find it strange that you and the other poster have singled Sikhs as being "absolutely British culturally”, when they are the only religious group (that I can think of) who have asked for, and got exemptions from legislation. For example S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site, and In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A "exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet."
The crash helmet exemption for motorcycles was an attempt ( not initiated by sikhs) to overturn the law on compulsory wearing of crash helmets;
On the basis that if they could get that exemption through, they could then undermine the law and get the whole legislation overturned.
By and large, the Sikh community were uninterested;
And as explained by my Sikh freinds, a turban ( actually it's a dastaar, or a pagri or a pegg), is not absolutely mandatory; the basic is that the hair should be covered. A few of my Sikh freinds have short hair, do not wear any head covering at all, except when they go to gurdwara. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
We need to employ the native British and get tougher of benefits, which makes working more lucrative for them.
I agree to this point.
But what is native British?
Native British to me are the people who are direct descendants of the people who have lived here for millenia. People who totally adopt our culture are great too I find the Sikh people in general to be absolutely British culturally and model citizens.
It sounds like neither of you want people of colour to have jobs
Errrr ? I haven't seen many Sikhs ? Have you ?
I also think All former Gurkhas and Family should be allowed to live here too ! Don't think they are white either ? Do you ?
Then why are you giving a thumbs up to a comment about the need to employ more "native British" that defines them as people who have "lived here for millennia"
Employing more "native British" would mean employing less people of colour would it not? Or are you talking about a job creation scheme, but only allowing "native British" to apply for those jobs?
I was giving the thumbs up to the latter part that mentioned Sikhs !
I'm afraid if you think I'm Racist you are barking up the wrong tree
Tho I happily admit to been Right Wing
OK, well maybe the poster of the quoted thread can answer those questions then.
I find it strange that you and the other poster have singled Sikhs as being "absolutely British culturally”, when they are the only religious group (that I can think of) who have asked for, and got exemptions from legislation. For example S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site, and In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A "exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet."
m
I do see your point
I think it's that from personal experience and the common reflection is that they like been here and they like The U K .
Our local Sikh shop keeper always used to say to my dad rip , that even tho X Mas day was the big holiday just knock on the door if he needed out
This was forty odd years ago !
Sadly they did get some racism from the owners of a nearby shop ? Who wernt half as nice or welcoming ! The irony was they wernt local either ! They were Welsh ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in"
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? "
it is
I have
Have you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? "
.
No I think the cash you get in Romania won't go as far as the cash you get here.....I haven't studied it to much, I'm just going off the fact Romania don't get much immigration just alot of emigration |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
you can't compare Romania to the UK anyhow, were first world they're third world, try getting cash work in France or Germany or Denmark, Sweden, Finland etc etc.... It's very hard, the laws for paying people cash in hand are firmer and it's less socially acceptable |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? "
Yes;
I live in one, and travel in most;
To get benefits in all EU countries ; you need to jump a much higher bar than in UK.
The UK claims that they have to give the benefits " because it's EU rules".
It isn't.
The burden of proof , and criteria in other EU countries is much more stringent than UK.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? .
No I think the cash you get in Romania won't go as far as the cash you get here.....I haven't studied it to much, I'm just going off the fact Romania don't get much immigration just alot of emigration"
Actually lots of people are trying to leave Ukraine to move to Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. Those governments have also setup fast track visa schemes to welcome them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I personally think the fact we attract a lot of immigration is something to be quite proud about, were obviously doing something that people like?.
Now if we can restrict that immigration to rule out some of the cunts that wanna get in... Well perfection, I some how think we'll end up getting some anyhow, that's life as they say, but at least we tried |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? .
No I think the cash you get in Romania won't go as far as the cash you get here.....I haven't studied it to much, I'm just going off the fact Romania don't get much immigration just alot of emigration
Actually lots of people are trying to leave Ukraine to move to Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. Those governments have also setup fast track visa schemes to welcome them."
.
That's because that's the backdoor to better places.... Nobody actually thinks.... Hey you know what love, we should emigrate to Romania |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? .
No I think the cash you get in Romania won't go as far as the cash you get here.....I haven't studied it to much, I'm just going off the fact Romania don't get much immigration just alot of emigration
Actually lots of people are trying to leave Ukraine to move to Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. Those governments have also setup fast track visa schemes to welcome them..
That's because that's the backdoor to better places.... Nobody actually thinks.... Hey you know what love, we should emigrate to Romania"
I'm not a fan of Romania, no offence to anyone, but you should see the life you can have in Bulgaria or Poland. Parts of Bulgaria are basically what Spain was 15 years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? .
No I think the cash you get in Romania won't go as far as the cash you get here.....I haven't studied it to much, I'm just going off the fact Romania don't get much immigration just alot of emigration
Actually lots of people are trying to leave Ukraine to move to Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. Those governments have also setup fast track visa schemes to welcome them..
That's because that's the backdoor to better places.... Nobody actually thinks.... Hey you know what love, we should emigrate to Romania
I'm not a fan of Romania, no offence to anyone, but you should see the life you can have in Bulgaria or Poland. Parts of Bulgaria are basically what Spain was 15 years ago. "
But the question is which country had more cash in hand work, not which country would you rather live in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? .
No I think the cash you get in Romania won't go as far as the cash you get here.....I haven't studied it to much, I'm just going off the fact Romania don't get much immigration just alot of emigration
Actually lots of people are trying to leave Ukraine to move to Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. Those governments have also setup fast track visa schemes to welcome them..
That's because that's the backdoor to better places.... Nobody actually thinks.... Hey you know what love, we should emigrate to Romania
I'm not a fan of Romania, no offence to anyone, but you should see the life you can have in Bulgaria or Poland. Parts of Bulgaria are basically what Spain was 15 years ago.
But the question is which country had more cash in hand work, not which country would you rather live in."
Eastern Europe by a mile!
Tax avoidance in eastern Europe is endemic due to a combination of high social security payments for generous employee benefits. The accounting laws are far less strict and the government is the biggest crook of them all so has absolutely zero motivation to crack down on it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
Benefits available in other EU countries
AUSTRIA
Health care Available immediately, but only if you pay “social insurance”
Child benefit Immediate payment of £89 per month
Unemployment benefit Only available to people who have paid social insurance
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
BELGIUM
Health care Available after a year
Child benefit £115 a month, available immediately
Unemployment benefit Have to have previously worked in Belgium
Housing benefit No national scheme; amounts vary regionally.
BULGARIA
Health care Free emergency care immediately; other treatments only available if you pay social insurance
Child benefit Targeted schemes restricted to Bulgarian citizens
Unemployment benefit Minimum of nine months of working in the country required to qualify
Housing benefit Immediate monthly allowance buzt only if you have a local authority home already
CYPRUS
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate yearly payment of £444
Unemployment benefit Six months of work in Cyprus required to qualify
Housing benefit Immediately available, limited to £506 a month
CZECH REPUBLIC
Health care Available immediately but cash charges apply
Child benefit £23 a month available immediately
Unemployment benefit 12-month minimum qualifying period
Housing benefit Available immediately
DENMARK
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Up to £161 a month available after 12 months
Unemployment benefit Minimum of one year’s work required to qualify
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
ESTONIA
Health care Available immediately but cash payments required for some treatments
Child benefit £16 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit £12.50 per week available immediately
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
FINLAND
Health care Public health service charging flat-rate fees. Available immediately
Child benefit £88 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Basic weekly unemployment allowance available after two months
Housing benefit Up to 80 per cent of housing costs available immediately but system varies regionally
FRANCE
Health care Only available with a card proving entitlement, issued to residents
Child benefit Immediate payment, but only for parents with more than one child
Unemployment benefit Four-month qualifying period
Housing benefit Immediate; scheme based on house size and local factors
GERMANY
Health care Only available with a health insurance card
Child benefit £155 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Immediate means-tested allowance for jobseekers who have made "intensive efforts" to find work
Housing benefit Full amount of housing costs available immediately
GREECE
Health care 100 days of work required to qualify
Child benefit No equivalent scheme
Unemployment benefit Minimum of six months of work required to qualify
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
HUNGARY
Health care Not immediately available
Child benefit £40.60 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Minimum qualifying period of 360 days
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
IRELAND
Health care Free after living in Ireland for three consecutive years, but free immediately to UK citizens
Child benefit £110 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit £160 per week available immediately
Housing benefit Immediate rent supplement providing short-term support
ITALY
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit No equivalent scheme
Unemployment benefit Qualifying period of three months
Housing benefit No national scheme; varies according to region
LATVIA
Health care Public health service with fees for GP and hospital visits, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate monthly payment of £9.30
Unemployment benefit One-year qualifying period
Housing benefit Varies locally
LITHUANIA
Health care Three months qualifying period but “urgent care” free immediately
Child benefit Immediate monthly payment of £24
Unemployment benefit 18-month qualifying period
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
LUXEMBOURG
Health care Not available immediately, as insurance-based
Child benefit £157.10 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Minimum of six months of work required to qualify
Housing benefit Immediate rent allowance of up to £104.90
MALTA
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate payment; up to £81.55 a month
Unemployment benefit Immediate means-tested benefit of up to £16 per day
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
POLAND
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate payment of up to £54 per month
Unemployment benefit Qualifying period of one year
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
PORTUGAL
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Monthly payment of up to £40
Unemployment benefit Qualifying period of 180 days
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
ROMANIA
Health care six-month qualifying period, except for emergencies
Child benefit monthly payment of up to £20
Unemployment benefit minimum qualifying period of 12 months
Housing benefit no equivalent scheme
SLOVAKIA
Health care immediately available; nominal cash payment for treatments
Child benefit immediate monthly payment of £19
Unemployment benefit minimum two-year qualifying period
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
SLOVENIA
Health care Available immediately but required to pay minimum of 10 per cent of some treatment costs
Child benefit Immediate payment of up to £97 per month
Unemployment benefit Minimum contribution of nine months
Housing benefit Only available if you already have social housing
SPAIN
Health care Only available with a card proving entitlement
Child benefit Immediate payment of up to £20 per month
Unemployment benefit Immediate payment available based on a variable proportion of average wages
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
SWEDEN
Health care Available immediately; basic fees for care
Child benefit Immediate monthly payment of £101
Unemployment benefit Six-month qualifying period
Housing benefit Immediate monthly allowance of up to £125
HOLLAND
Health care only available with a certificate proving entitlement
Child benefit Immediate payment of £943 per year
Unemployment benefit Six-month qualifying period
Housing benefit Means tested, available immediately
UNITED KINGDOM
Health care Available immediately and free of charge under the National Health Service
Child benefit Paid immediately if the child is under 16, or 16 to 19 and in education or training, and the claimant has an individual income of less than £50,000. Amount is £20.30 a week for the eldest or only child, £13.40 per additional child
Unemployment benefit Immediate payment of £71.70 a week in Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) after proving you are actively seeking work. EU migrants have to pass the “right-to-reside” test to show they are “economically active”. The European Commission wants to abolish this test. There is also contribution-based additional JSA which is only available after working for at least two years.
Housing benefit Available immediately if you are on a low income, whether you are working or unemployed.
How much depends on individual circumstances, but amount cannot normally exceed £250 per week for a one-bedroom property, or up to £400 a week for four bedrooms or more.
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Benefits available in other EU countries
AUSTRIA
Health care Available immediately, but only if you pay “social insurance”
Child benefit Immediate payment of £89 per month
Unemployment benefit Only available to people who have paid social insurance
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
BELGIUM
Health care Available after a year
Child benefit £115 a month, available immediately
Unemployment benefit Have to have previously worked in Belgium
Housing benefit No national scheme; amounts vary regionally.
BULGARIA
Health care Free emergency care immediately; other treatments only available if you pay social insurance
Child benefit Targeted schemes restricted to Bulgarian citizens
Unemployment benefit Minimum of nine months of working in the country required to qualify
Housing benefit Immediate monthly allowance buzt only if you have a local authority home already
CYPRUS
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate yearly payment of £444
Unemployment benefit Six months of work in Cyprus required to qualify
Housing benefit Immediately available, limited to £506 a month
CZECH REPUBLIC
Health care Available immediately but cash charges apply
Child benefit £23 a month available immediately
Unemployment benefit 12-month minimum qualifying period
Housing benefit Available immediately
DENMARK
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Up to £161 a month available after 12 months
Unemployment benefit Minimum of one year’s work required to qualify
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
ESTONIA
Health care Available immediately but cash payments required for some treatments
Child benefit £16 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit £12.50 per week available immediately
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
FINLAND
Health care Public health service charging flat-rate fees. Available immediately
Child benefit £88 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Basic weekly unemployment allowance available after two months
Housing benefit Up to 80 per cent of housing costs available immediately but system varies regionally
FRANCE
Health care Only available with a card proving entitlement, issued to residents
Child benefit Immediate payment, but only for parents with more than one child
Unemployment benefit Four-month qualifying period
Housing benefit Immediate; scheme based on house size and local factors
GERMANY
Health care Only available with a health insurance card
Child benefit £155 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Immediate means-tested allowance for jobseekers who have made "intensive efforts" to find work
Housing benefit Full amount of housing costs available immediately
GREECE
Health care 100 days of work required to qualify
Child benefit No equivalent scheme
Unemployment benefit Minimum of six months of work required to qualify
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
HUNGARY
Health care Not immediately available
Child benefit £40.60 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Minimum qualifying period of 360 days
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
IRELAND
Health care Free after living in Ireland for three consecutive years, but free immediately to UK citizens
Child benefit £110 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit £160 per week available immediately
Housing benefit Immediate rent supplement providing short-term support
ITALY
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit No equivalent scheme
Unemployment benefit Qualifying period of three months
Housing benefit No national scheme; varies according to region
LATVIA
Health care Public health service with fees for GP and hospital visits, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate monthly payment of £9.30
Unemployment benefit One-year qualifying period
Housing benefit Varies locally
LITHUANIA
Health care Three months qualifying period but “urgent care” free immediately
Child benefit Immediate monthly payment of £24
Unemployment benefit 18-month qualifying period
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
LUXEMBOURG
Health care Not available immediately, as insurance-based
Child benefit £157.10 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Minimum of six months of work required to qualify
Housing benefit Immediate rent allowance of up to £104.90
MALTA
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate payment; up to £81.55 a month
Unemployment benefit Immediate means-tested benefit of up to £16 per day
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
POLAND
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate payment of up to £54 per month
Unemployment benefit Qualifying period of one year
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
PORTUGAL
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Monthly payment of up to £40
Unemployment benefit Qualifying period of 180 days
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
ROMANIA
Health care six-month qualifying period, except for emergencies
Child benefit monthly payment of up to £20
Unemployment benefit minimum qualifying period of 12 months
Housing benefit no equivalent scheme
SLOVAKIA
Health care immediately available; nominal cash payment for treatments
Child benefit immediate monthly payment of £19
Unemployment benefit minimum two-year qualifying period
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
SLOVENIA
Health care Available immediately but required to pay minimum of 10 per cent of some treatment costs
Child benefit Immediate payment of up to £97 per month
Unemployment benefit Minimum contribution of nine months
Housing benefit Only available if you already have social housing
SPAIN
Health care Only available with a card proving entitlement
Child benefit Immediate payment of up to £20 per month
Unemployment benefit Immediate payment available based on a variable proportion of average wages
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
SWEDEN
Health care Available immediately; basic fees for care
Child benefit Immediate monthly payment of £101
Unemployment benefit Six-month qualifying period
Housing benefit Immediate monthly allowance of up to £125
HOLLAND
Health care only available with a certificate proving entitlement
Child benefit Immediate payment of £943 per year
Unemployment benefit Six-month qualifying period
Housing benefit Means tested, available immediately
UNITED KINGDOM
Health care Available immediately and free of charge under the National Health Service
Child benefit Paid immediately if the child is under 16, or 16 to 19 and in education or training, and the claimant has an individual income of less than £50,000. Amount is £20.30 a week for the eldest or only child, £13.40 per additional child
Unemployment benefit Immediate payment of £71.70 a week in Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) after proving you are actively seeking work. EU migrants have to pass the “right-to-reside” test to show they are “economically active”. The European Commission wants to abolish this test. There is also contribution-based additional JSA which is only available after working for at least two years.
Housing benefit Available immediately if you are on a low income, whether you are working or unemployed.
How much depends on individual circumstances, but amount cannot normally exceed £250 per week for a one-bedroom property, or up to £400 a week for four bedrooms or more.
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html"
No way are many of these benefits available immediately. I waited six months for child benefit (£20.70 currently for one child) when I came to this country despite being employed immediately (I moved for a job). I did get it all backdated, for all three of my children. Same for any other benefits, there is often a long wait. I gave up on housing benefit despite my rent being £1300 for a house because I did not have time to chase it up due to my working hours despite being eligible for £600 a month .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? .
No I think the cash you get in Romania won't go as far as the cash you get here.....I haven't studied it to much, I'm just going off the fact Romania don't get much immigration just alot of emigration
Actually lots of people are trying to leave Ukraine to move to Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. Those governments have also setup fast track visa schemes to welcome them..
That's because that's the backdoor to better places.... Nobody actually thinks.... Hey you know what love, we should emigrate to Romania
I'm not a fan of Romania, no offence to anyone, but you should see the life you can have in Bulgaria or Poland. Parts of Bulgaria are basically what Spain was 15 years ago. "
.
What a shithole?.
You couldn't drink tap water in France in the late 60s early 70s?
.
You like evidence, let's look at were billionaires like to go!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? .
No I think the cash you get in Romania won't go as far as the cash you get here.....I haven't studied it to much, I'm just going off the fact Romania don't get much immigration just alot of emigration
Actually lots of people are trying to leave Ukraine to move to Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. Those governments have also setup fast track visa schemes to welcome them..
That's because that's the backdoor to better places.... Nobody actually thinks.... Hey you know what love, we should emigrate to Romania
I'm not a fan of Romania, no offence to anyone, but you should see the life you can have in Bulgaria or Poland. Parts of Bulgaria are basically what Spain was 15 years ago. .
What a shithole?.
You couldn't drink tap water in France in the late 60s early 70s?
.
You like evidence, let's look at were billionaires like to go!!"
Not a comparison. They may emigrate to where they get the least tax or no tax. Different circumstances. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think there's three main reasons
.
1 were the nicest country by a country mile
2 we have a generous attitude towards housing, tax credits, child benefit, healthcare, etc etc
3 were the easiest country by far too get "cash work" in
So you think its easier to get cash in hand in the UK than any other country in the EU? Have you got any proof of that? Easier than Romania for example?
Have you actually looked at the benefits in other EU counties, are you sure that we are the nicest? .
No I think the cash you get in Romania won't go as far as the cash you get here.....I haven't studied it to much, I'm just going off the fact Romania don't get much immigration just alot of emigration
Actually lots of people are trying to leave Ukraine to move to Romania, Bulgaria and Poland. Those governments have also setup fast track visa schemes to welcome them..
That's because that's the backdoor to better places.... Nobody actually thinks.... Hey you know what love, we should emigrate to Romania
I'm not a fan of Romania, no offence to anyone, but you should see the life you can have in Bulgaria or Poland. Parts of Bulgaria are basically what Spain was 15 years ago. .
What a shithole?.
You couldn't drink tap water in France in the late 60s early 70s?
.
You like evidence, let's look at were billionaires like to go!!
Not a comparison. They may emigrate to where they get the least tax or no tax. Different circumstances."
.
I think your Wrong, billionaires often take the more expensive choice on tax for reasons that "ordinary" people don't quite grasp.
They look for stability number 1, you can see that with the Chinese flight of wealth, their fleeing to countries like Canada, UK and USA for stability and protection, then they look for infrastructure, language, location... Tax is actually quite low on their list because the truth is they can avoid most of their taxes in these countries.... places like Romania offer them very little of that!.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Benefits available in other EU countries
AUSTRIA
Health care Available immediately, but only if you pay “social insurance”
Child benefit Immediate payment of £89 per month
Unemployment benefit Only available to people who have paid social insurance
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
BELGIUM
Health care Available after a year
Child benefit £115 a month, available immediately
Unemployment benefit Have to have previously worked in Belgium
Housing benefit No national scheme; amounts vary regionally.
BULGARIA
Health care Free emergency care immediately; other treatments only available if you pay social insurance
Child benefit Targeted schemes restricted to Bulgarian citizens
Unemployment benefit Minimum of nine months of working in the country required to qualify
Housing benefit Immediate monthly allowance buzt only if you have a local authority home already
CYPRUS
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate yearly payment of £444
Unemployment benefit Six months of work in Cyprus required to qualify
Housing benefit Immediately available, limited to £506 a month
CZECH REPUBLIC
Health care Available immediately but cash charges apply
Child benefit £23 a month available immediately
Unemployment benefit 12-month minimum qualifying period
Housing benefit Available immediately
DENMARK
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Up to £161 a month available after 12 months
Unemployment benefit Minimum of one year’s work required to qualify
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
ESTONIA
Health care Available immediately but cash payments required for some treatments
Child benefit £16 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit £12.50 per week available immediately
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
FINLAND
Health care Public health service charging flat-rate fees. Available immediately
Child benefit £88 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Basic weekly unemployment allowance available after two months
Housing benefit Up to 80 per cent of housing costs available immediately but system varies regionally
FRANCE
Health care Only available with a card proving entitlement, issued to residents
Child benefit Immediate payment, but only for parents with more than one child
Unemployment benefit Four-month qualifying period
Housing benefit Immediate; scheme based on house size and local factors
GERMANY
Health care Only available with a health insurance card
Child benefit £155 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Immediate means-tested allowance for jobseekers who have made "intensive efforts" to find work
Housing benefit Full amount of housing costs available immediately
GREECE
Health care 100 days of work required to qualify
Child benefit No equivalent scheme
Unemployment benefit Minimum of six months of work required to qualify
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
HUNGARY
Health care Not immediately available
Child benefit £40.60 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Minimum qualifying period of 360 days
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
IRELAND
Health care Free after living in Ireland for three consecutive years, but free immediately to UK citizens
Child benefit £110 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit £160 per week available immediately
Housing benefit Immediate rent supplement providing short-term support
ITALY
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit No equivalent scheme
Unemployment benefit Qualifying period of three months
Housing benefit No national scheme; varies according to region
LATVIA
Health care Public health service with fees for GP and hospital visits, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate monthly payment of £9.30
Unemployment benefit One-year qualifying period
Housing benefit Varies locally
LITHUANIA
Health care Three months qualifying period but “urgent care” free immediately
Child benefit Immediate monthly payment of £24
Unemployment benefit 18-month qualifying period
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
LUXEMBOURG
Health care Not available immediately, as insurance-based
Child benefit £157.10 per month available immediately
Unemployment benefit Minimum of six months of work required to qualify
Housing benefit Immediate rent allowance of up to £104.90
MALTA
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate payment; up to £81.55 a month
Unemployment benefit Immediate means-tested benefit of up to £16 per day
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
POLAND
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Immediate payment of up to £54 per month
Unemployment benefit Qualifying period of one year
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
PORTUGAL
Health care Free, available immediately
Child benefit Monthly payment of up to £40
Unemployment benefit Qualifying period of 180 days
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
ROMANIA
Health care six-month qualifying period, except for emergencies
Child benefit monthly payment of up to £20
Unemployment benefit minimum qualifying period of 12 months
Housing benefit no equivalent scheme
SLOVAKIA
Health care immediately available; nominal cash payment for treatments
Child benefit immediate monthly payment of £19
Unemployment benefit minimum two-year qualifying period
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
SLOVENIA
Health care Available immediately but required to pay minimum of 10 per cent of some treatment costs
Child benefit Immediate payment of up to £97 per month
Unemployment benefit Minimum contribution of nine months
Housing benefit Only available if you already have social housing
SPAIN
Health care Only available with a card proving entitlement
Child benefit Immediate payment of up to £20 per month
Unemployment benefit Immediate payment available based on a variable proportion of average wages
Housing benefit No equivalent scheme
SWEDEN
Health care Available immediately; basic fees for care
Child benefit Immediate monthly payment of £101
Unemployment benefit Six-month qualifying period
Housing benefit Immediate monthly allowance of up to £125
HOLLAND
Health care only available with a certificate proving entitlement
Child benefit Immediate payment of £943 per year
Unemployment benefit Six-month qualifying period
Housing benefit Means tested, available immediately
UNITED KINGDOM
Health care Available immediately and free of charge under the National Health Service
Child benefit Paid immediately if the child is under 16, or 16 to 19 and in education or training, and the claimant has an individual income of less than £50,000. Amount is £20.30 a week for the eldest or only child, £13.40 per additional child
Unemployment benefit Immediate payment of £71.70 a week in Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) after proving you are actively seeking work. EU migrants have to pass the “right-to-reside” test to show they are “economically active”. The European Commission wants to abolish this test. There is also contribution-based additional JSA which is only available after working for at least two years.
Housing benefit Available immediately if you are on a low income, whether you are working or unemployed.
How much depends on individual circumstances, but amount cannot normally exceed £250 per week for a one-bedroom property, or up to £400 a week for four bedrooms or more.
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/10391238/Benefits-in-Europe-country-by-country.html
No way are many of these benefits available immediately. I waited six months for child benefit (£20.70 currently for one child) when I came to this country despite being employed immediately (I moved for a job). I did get it all backdated, for all three of my children. Same for any other benefits, there is often a long wait. I gave up on housing benefit despite my rent being £1300 for a house because I did not have time to chase it up due to my working hours despite being eligible for £600 a month .... "
Lovely. Come and take benefits away. My great granddad was a refugee and he never took a penny. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thank fuck we voted Brexit."
At least then you will find out that all the " terrible things" happening in UK are actually the fault of the UK Government and not the EU.
And UK politicians won't be able to hide behind the " it's the EU wot dunnit" excuse anymore.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thank fuck we voted Brexit.
At least then you will find out that all the " terrible things" happening in UK are actually the fault of the UK Government and not the EU.
And UK politicians won't be able to hide behind the " it's the EU wot dunnit" excuse anymore.
"
That's great. l'd rather we lived and died by our own sword.
Australia are already calling for a free trade agreement, we are the German automobile's biggest export market and our cultural exports are amongst the greatest and most pervasive on Earth. PLUS we have the English language. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thank fuck we voted Brexit.
At least then you will find out that all the " terrible things" happening in UK are actually the fault of the UK Government and not the EU.
And UK politicians won't be able to hide behind the " it's the EU wot dunnit" excuse anymore.
That's great. l'd rather we lived and died by our own sword.
Australia are already calling for a free trade agreement, we are the German automobile's biggest export market and our cultural exports are amongst the greatest and most pervasive on Earth. PLUS we have the English language. "
Living and dying by your own sword is irrelevant; your politicians just won't be able to hide behind the "EU" excuse anymore.
The Australuan Prime Minister is desperate for any deal, with anyone, because he is "dead man walking",
The Australian government will actually get round to it eventually, when they have dealt with other business ( their deals with China, the EU, and updated US deals). They are far more focused on that.
As for German car manufacturers; that's the least of the car issues;
The UK motor industry sources 50% of its components and sub components from the EU.
So it's the UK that needs the trade deal; the German motor industry would easily ride out a price hike in exports to UK. Car sales are actually a minor part of the " motor industry economics" in the EU ( or indeed, globally)
Paradoxically, 15% of the sub assemblies in German cars, come from UK; which in turn has sourced 50% of the components for the sub assemblies from the EU.
And this is the problem that the Japanese car manufacturers in UK face; whether to keep factories going in UK, if tariffs start, or move the factories to the EU to avoid tariffs on components.
That's why this "BREXIT means BREXIT" nonsense is so utterly pathetic; no-one, especially the ministers in charge of this has the slightest clue of the complexity of the things they have to untangle.
I wouldn't lose sleep over " culture"; successive UK governments have effectively slaughtered the UK's arts and culture base.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thank fuck we voted Brexit.
At least then you will find out that all the " terrible things" happening in UK are actually the fault of the UK Government and not the EU.
And UK politicians won't be able to hide behind the " it's the EU wot dunnit" excuse anymore.
That's great. l'd rather we lived and died by our own sword.
"
Sounds great until you see who they are!
A shadow foreign secretary who can't name the French foreign secretary. International business Secretary who calls British business people "fat and lazy". A shadow farming secretary who is a "militant vegan".
Hardly any of them seem to have had any kind of career before politics. I'd ban all politicians under 40. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thank fuck we voted Brexit.
At least then you will find out that all the " terrible things" happening in UK are actually the fault of the UK Government and not the EU.
And UK politicians won't be able to hide behind the " it's the EU wot dunnit" excuse anymore.
That's great. l'd rather we lived and died by our own sword.
Australia are already calling for a free trade agreement, we are the German automobile's biggest export market and our cultural exports are amongst the greatest and most pervasive on Earth. PLUS we have the English language.
Living and dying by your own sword is irrelevant; your politicians just won't be able to hide behind the "EU" excuse anymore.
The Australuan Prime Minister is desperate for any deal, with anyone, because he is "dead man walking",
The Australian government will actually get round to it eventually, when they have dealt with other business ( their deals with China, the EU, and updated US deals). They are far more focused on that.
As for German car manufacturers; that's the least of the car issues;
The UK motor industry sources 50% of its components and sub components from the EU.
So it's the UK that needs the trade deal; the German motor industry would easily ride out a price hike in exports to UK. Car sales are actually a minor part of the " motor industry economics" in the EU ( or indeed, globally)
Paradoxically, 15% of the sub assemblies in German cars, come from UK; which in turn has sourced 50% of the components for the sub assemblies from the EU.
And this is the problem that the Japanese car manufacturers in UK face; whether to keep factories going in UK, if tariffs start, or move the factories to the EU to avoid tariffs on components.
That's why this "BREXIT means BREXIT" nonsense is so utterly pathetic; no-one, especially the ministers in charge of this has the slightest clue of the complexity of the things they have to untangle.
I wouldn't lose sleep over " culture"; successive UK governments have effectively slaughtered the UK's arts and culture base.
"
Wow you guys are BITTER, whereas we are chuffed. That's telling.
Your thinking that governments are the ones who make or break culture is perhaps indicative to why French is now an unimportant language.
Living and dying by your sword is not irrelevant. Self pride is not irrelevant.
Australia value their relationship with us. They are culturally British to. Last time l checked British nationals can stay there for 6 months at a time.
Tbh l think that the Europeans are jealous of our culture and history. David Starkey make a good point about France loathing us because we liberated them and caused shame.
They sing our songs, they speak our words, they consume the Anglospheres pop art with a ravenous appetite.
''The UK motor industry sources 50% of its components and sub components from the EU.''
You aid my argument. They are selling
We rose to the top without the Europeans and will will survive this without them. You are now saddled with all those unworkable Bloc countries and the economic plug whole that is southern Europe. l'm very very exited for the future. And if all goes to shit and can move to lsrael xD |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thank fuck we voted Brexit.
At least then you will find out that all the " terrible things" happening in UK are actually the fault of the UK Government and not the EU.
And UK politicians won't be able to hide behind the " it's the EU wot dunnit" excuse anymore.
That's great. l'd rather we lived and died by our own sword.
Australia are already calling for a free trade agreement, we are the German automobile's biggest export market and our cultural exports are amongst the greatest and most pervasive on Earth. PLUS we have the English language.
Living and dying by your own sword is irrelevant; your politicians just won't be able to hide behind the "EU" excuse anymore.
The Australuan Prime Minister is desperate for any deal, with anyone, because he is "dead man walking",
The Australian government will actually get round to it eventually, when they have dealt with other business ( their deals with China, the EU, and updated US deals). They are far more focused on that.
As for German car manufacturers; that's the least of the car issues;
The UK motor industry sources 50% of its components and sub components from the EU.
So it's the UK that needs the trade deal; the German motor industry would easily ride out a price hike in exports to UK. Car sales are actually a minor part of the " motor industry economics" in the EU ( or indeed, globally)
Paradoxically, 15% of the sub assemblies in German cars, come from UK; which in turn has sourced 50% of the components for the sub assemblies from the EU.
And this is the problem that the Japanese car manufacturers in UK face; whether to keep factories going in UK, if tariffs start, or move the factories to the EU to avoid tariffs on components.
That's why this "BREXIT means BREXIT" nonsense is so utterly pathetic; no-one, especially the ministers in charge of this has the slightest clue of the complexity of the things they have to untangle.
I wouldn't lose sleep over " culture"; successive UK governments have effectively slaughtered the UK's arts and culture base.
Wow you guys are BITTER, whereas we are chuffed. That's telling.
Your thinking that governments are the ones who make or break culture is perhaps indicative to why French is now an unimportant language.
Living and dying by your sword is not irrelevant. Self pride is not irrelevant.
Australia value their relationship with us. They are culturally British to. Last time l checked British nationals can stay there for 6 months at a time.
Tbh l think that the Europeans are jealous of our culture and history. David Starkey make a good point about France loathing us because we liberated them and caused shame.
They sing our songs, they speak our words, they consume the Anglospheres pop art with a ravenous appetite.
''The UK motor industry sources 50% of its components and sub components from the EU.''
You aid my argument. They are selling
We rose to the top without the Europeans and will will survive this without them. You are now saddled with all those unworkable Bloc countries and the economic plug whole that is southern Europe. l'm very very exited for the future. And if all goes to shit and can move to lsrael xD"
So funny watching The desperation of the BREXITers trying to talk up what's going to happen, and ignoring the difficulties of the actual issues.
As for culture...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thank fuck we voted Brexit.
At least then you will find out that all the " terrible things" happening in UK are actually the fault of the UK Government and not the EU.
And UK politicians won't be able to hide behind the " it's the EU wot dunnit" excuse anymore.
That's great. l'd rather we lived and died by our own sword.
Sounds great until you see who they are!
A shadow foreign secretary who can't name the French foreign secretary. International business Secretary who calls British business people "fat and lazy". A shadow farming secretary who is a "militant vegan".
Hardly any of them seem to have had any kind of career before politics. I'd ban all politicians under 40. "
Thornberry's competence is almost shocking. Almost as bad as her politics. l loved seeing Andrew Neil shred her as well as that interview the other day.
l'd rather we were ruined by our own cretinous politicians than some EuroSuit that we have no idea about.
l think we SHOULD be more insular. Japan is. Who decided along the line that it was a bad thing? Japan is still 99% ethnically Japanese and their culture is rich and fantastic and exported to a tremendous degree. Only the far left have somehow convinced people that Britain and her culture isn't good enough. Back in the 60s, when Britan was still British, we exported out culture and music far and wide. THe rest of the world seeming doesn't agree with those mega libs. We need millions of foreigners to save us from bangers and mash and roast beef? xD Thank God for curry. The suicide rates would sky rocket without it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thank fuck we voted Brexit.
At least then you will find out that all the " terrible things" happening in UK are actually the fault of the UK Government and not the EU.
And UK politicians won't be able to hide behind the " it's the EU wot dunnit" excuse anymore.
That's great. l'd rather we lived and died by our own sword.
Sounds great until you see who they are!
A shadow foreign secretary who can't name the French foreign secretary. International business Secretary who calls British business people "fat and lazy". A shadow farming secretary who is a "militant vegan".
Hardly any of them seem to have had any kind of career before politics. I'd ban all politicians under 40.
Thornberry's competence is almost shocking. Almost as bad as her politics. l loved seeing Andrew Neil shred her as well as that interview the other day.
l'd rather we were ruined by our own cretinous politicians than some EuroSuit that we have no idea about.
l think we SHOULD be more insular. Japan is. Who decided along the line that it was a bad thing? Japan is still 99% ethnically Japanese and their culture is rich and fantastic and exported to a tremendous degree. Only the far left have somehow convinced people that Britain and her culture isn't good enough. Back in the 60s, when Britan was still British, we exported out culture and music far and wide. THe rest of the world seeming doesn't agree with those mega libs. We need millions of foreigners to save us from bangers and mash and roast beef? xD Thank God for curry. The suicide rates would sky rocket without it.
"
But what do you think of Japan's economy over the last 30 years? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Culture? We were at the proms in the park on saturday night mingling with people from all over the world who had come to experience and enjoy British culture and celebrate the biggest music festival in the world. Pity some of the Brits on here don't realise what we have got and in their rush to appear oh so right on and trendy dismiss it so easily |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thank fuck we voted Brexit.
At least then you will find out that all the " terrible things" happening in UK are actually the fault of the UK Government and not the EU.
And UK politicians won't be able to hide behind the " it's the EU wot dunnit" excuse anymore.
That's great. l'd rather we lived and died by our own sword.
Australia are already calling for a free trade agreement, we are the German automobile's biggest export market and our cultural exports are amongst the greatest and most pervasive on Earth. PLUS we have the English language.
Living and dying by your own sword is irrelevant; your politicians just won't be able to hide behind the "EU" excuse anymore.
The Australuan Prime Minister is desperate for any deal, with anyone, because he is "dead man walking",
The Australian government will actually get round to it eventually, when they have dealt with other business ( their deals with China, the EU, and updated US deals). They are far more focused on that.
As for German car manufacturers; that's the least of the car issues;
The UK motor industry sources 50% of its components and sub components from the EU.
So it's the UK that needs the trade deal; the German motor industry would easily ride out a price hike in exports to UK. Car sales are actually a minor part of the " motor industry economics" in the EU ( or indeed, globally)
Paradoxically, 15% of the sub assemblies in German cars, come from UK; which in turn has sourced 50% of the components for the sub assemblies from the EU.
And this is the problem that the Japanese car manufacturers in UK face; whether to keep factories going in UK, if tariffs start, or move the factories to the EU to avoid tariffs on components.
That's why this "BREXIT means BREXIT" nonsense is so utterly pathetic; no-one, especially the ministers in charge of this has the slightest clue of the complexity of the things they have to untangle.
I wouldn't lose sleep over " culture"; successive UK governments have effectively slaughtered the UK's arts and culture base.
Wow you guys are BITTER, whereas we are chuffed. That's telling.
Your thinking that governments are the ones who make or break culture is perhaps indicative to why French is now an unimportant language.
Living and dying by your sword is not irrelevant. Self pride is not irrelevant.
Australia value their relationship with us. They are culturally British to. Last time l checked British nationals can stay there for 6 months at a time.
Tbh l think that the Europeans are jealous of our culture and history. David Starkey make a good point about France loathing us because we liberated them and caused shame.
They sing our songs, they speak our words, they consume the Anglospheres pop art with a ravenous appetite.
''The UK motor industry sources 50% of its components and sub components from the EU.''
You aid my argument. They are selling
We rose to the top without the Europeans and will will survive this without them. You are now saddled with all those unworkable Bloc countries and the economic plug whole that is southern Europe. l'm very very exited for the future. And if all goes to shit and can move to lsrael xD"
I'm sorry I can't help but bit. You would be pretty funny if you weren't serious. Add to it that you are so sure about your convictions that you would bail if it turned sour. But top ho to you sir, you made me chuckle.
Ps I think the French language is still pretty important to the French. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
