FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Will a successful Brexit mean record high immigration?
Will a successful Brexit mean record high immigration?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It was not about immigration it was about controlled immigration, there is a big difference" Really? Take a look at the Daily Mail App. The rabid on there are almost exclusively banging on about reduced immigration. Perhaps it was instead the 350 million a week to be spent on the BHS instead? Maybe I got it wrong and that none of the Brexiters had any issues at all with immigration. | |||
"Many Brexiters suggest that a UK outside of the EU will lead to greater economic prospects and the loss of EU oversight will promote growth without EU red tape hindering them. If Brexit is a major success and companies expand and fill their order books, where will the employees come from to fuel this growth? As I understand, the current migrant surge is now almost exclusively economically lead (unless I have missed the queues of millions of EU citizens claiming dole?) So how will a successful Brexit that leads to increased job opportunities be fuelled? Is it possible that a successful Brexit will do the exact opposite of what many Brexiters wanted and actually increase immigration?" No one wants to stop people coming to the UK but we do need control over who and how many. If there are jobs, houses and school places available then I,m sure as many people as are needed will be allowed to enter the UK. | |||
"It was not about immigration it was about controlled immigration, there is a big difference" I don't believe that at all. When people were talking about immigration, they were talking about the strain on public services, the strain on doctors, housing, education etc. None of that is about controlling upwards is it? Its people believing that the overall number needs to be reduced. I challenge you to provide one single quote from the Vote Leave campaign or any senior campaigner BEFORE the referendum saying that they wanted immigration to INCREASE, but to be controlled. | |||
"Many Brexiters suggest that a UK outside of the EU will lead to greater economic prospects and the loss of EU oversight will promote growth without EU red tape hindering them. If Brexit is a major success and companies expand and fill their order books, where will the employees come from to fuel this growth? As I understand, the current migrant surge is now almost exclusively economically lead (unless I have missed the queues of millions of EU citizens claiming dole?) So how will a successful Brexit that leads to increased job opportunities be fuelled? Is it possible that a successful Brexit will do the exact opposite of what many Brexiters wanted and actually increase immigration? No one wants to stop people coming to the UK but we do need control over who and how many. If there are jobs, houses and school places available then I,m sure as many people as are needed will be allowed to enter the UK." Lots of people do want to stop people coming to the UK. | |||
"It was not about immigration it was about controlled immigration, there is a big difference I don't believe that at all. When people were talking about immigration, they were talking about the strain on public services, the strain on doctors, housing, education etc. None of that is about controlling upwards is it? Its people believing that the overall number needs to be reduced. I challenge you to provide one single quote from the Vote Leave campaign or any senior campaigner BEFORE the referendum saying that they wanted immigration to INCREASE, but to be controlled." Name one Remain campaigner who said they wanted immigration to INCREASE | |||
"It was not about immigration it was about controlled immigration, there is a big difference I don't believe that at all. When people were talking about immigration, they were talking about the strain on public services, the strain on doctors, housing, education etc. None of that is about controlling upwards is it? Its people believing that the overall number needs to be reduced. I challenge you to provide one single quote from the Vote Leave campaign or any senior campaigner BEFORE the referendum saying that they wanted immigration to INCREASE, but to be controlled." Read my post above yours.  | |||
"Many Brexiters suggest that a UK outside of the EU will lead to greater economic prospects and the loss of EU oversight will promote growth without EU red tape hindering them. If Brexit is a major success and companies expand and fill their order books, where will the employees come from to fuel this growth? As I understand, the current migrant surge is now almost exclusively economically lead (unless I have missed the queues of millions of EU citizens claiming dole?) So how will a successful Brexit that leads to increased job opportunities be fuelled? Is it possible that a successful Brexit will do the exact opposite of what many Brexiters wanted and actually increase immigration? No one wants to stop people coming to the UK but we do need control over who and how many. If there are jobs, houses and school places available then I,m sure as many people as are needed will be allowed to enter the UK. Lots of people do want to stop people coming to the UK." No they don't they just want control even Nigel Farage said we need control I never hear him say stop immigration. | |||
"It was not about immigration it was about controlled immigration, there is a big difference I don't believe that at all. When people were talking about immigration, they were talking about the strain on public services, the strain on doctors, housing, education etc. None of that is about controlling upwards is it? Its people believing that the overall number needs to be reduced. I challenge you to provide one single quote from the Vote Leave campaign or any senior campaigner BEFORE the referendum saying that they wanted immigration to INCREASE, but to be controlled. Name one Remain campaigner who said they wanted immigration to INCREASE" I haven't said that they wanted that. You are the one who has said that they are happy for immigration to increase as long as its a controlled increase. | |||
"Many Brexiters suggest that a UK outside of the EU will lead to greater economic prospects and the loss of EU oversight will promote growth without EU red tape hindering them. If Brexit is a major success and companies expand and fill their order books, where will the employees come from to fuel this growth? As I understand, the current migrant surge is now almost exclusively economically lead (unless I have missed the queues of millions of EU citizens claiming dole?) So how will a successful Brexit that leads to increased job opportunities be fuelled? Is it possible that a successful Brexit will do the exact opposite of what many Brexiters wanted and actually increase immigration? No one wants to stop people coming to the UK but we do need control over who and how many. If there are jobs, houses and school places available then I,m sure as many people as are needed will be allowed to enter the UK. Lots of people do want to stop people coming to the UK. No they don't they just want control even Nigel Farage said we need control I never hear him say stop immigration." People on this very forum have suggested that immigrants are shot or fed to sharks! | |||
"Many Brexiters suggest that a UK outside of the EU will lead to greater economic prospects and the loss of EU oversight will promote growth without EU red tape hindering them. If Brexit is a major success and companies expand and fill their order books, where will the employees come from to fuel this growth? As I understand, the current migrant surge is now almost exclusively economically lead (unless I have missed the queues of millions of EU citizens claiming dole?) So how will a successful Brexit that leads to increased job opportunities be fuelled? Is it possible that a successful Brexit will do the exact opposite of what many Brexiters wanted and actually increase immigration? No one wants to stop people coming to the UK but we do need control over who and how many. If there are jobs, houses and school places available then I,m sure as many people as are needed will be allowed to enter the UK. Lots of people do want to stop people coming to the UK. No they don't they just want control even Nigel Farage said we need control I never hear him say stop immigration. People on this very forum have suggested that immigrants are shot or fed to sharks! " Was I one of them? Did you ever stop to think some people on here just want to take the piss out of other people. | |||
| |||
"Let's be real here. If the UK is successful post Brexit there will consequentially be record high immigration. Who could argue though with immigration that is economically lead?" When the UK is successful post Brexit if we need immigrants we will decide which ones and how many. | |||
"Let's be real here. If the UK is successful post Brexit there will consequentially be record high immigration. Who could argue though with immigration that is economically lead?" Well its not just that, think about how are they going to make sure that everyone who is here is allowed to stay. There wasn't a census or a registration for all EU citizens in the country on a specific day, so they will have to do that at some point in the future. You can bet on that day we will have a record high of immigration so that people will be able to secure their right to work here in the future. | |||
"Let's be real here. If the UK is successful post Brexit there will consequentially be record high immigration. Who could argue though with immigration that is economically lead? When the UK is successful post Brexit if we need immigrants we will decide which ones and how many." We are successful now, and we need immigrants now, and we need more in the future. | |||
"Many Brexiters suggest that a UK outside of the EU will lead to greater economic prospects and the loss of EU oversight will promote growth without EU red tape hindering them. If Brexit is a major success and companies expand and fill their order books, where will the employees come from to fuel this growth? As I understand, the current migrant surge is now almost exclusively economically lead (unless I have missed the queues of millions of EU citizens claiming dole?) So how will a successful Brexit that leads to increased job opportunities be fuelled? Is it possible that a successful Brexit will do the exact opposite of what many Brexiters wanted and actually increase immigration? No one wants to stop people coming to the UK but we do need control over who and how many. If there are jobs, houses and school places available then I,m sure as many people as are needed will be allowed to enter the UK. Lots of people do want to stop people coming to the UK. No they don't they just want control even Nigel Farage said we need control I never hear him say stop immigration. People on this very forum have suggested that immigrants are shot or fed to sharks! Was I one of them? Did you ever stop to think some people on here just want to take the piss out of other people." I can't remember you suggesting that, but i can remember others. To be honest I can't see how it takes the piss out of anyone else, it just shows those posters as vile human beings. | |||
"Let's be real here. If the UK is successful post Brexit there will consequentially be record high immigration. Who could argue though with immigration that is economically lead? When the UK is successful post Brexit if we need immigrants we will decide which ones and how many." So simply, if they have a job, they can come? I guess that would be better for eu migrants who now come and look for work. Far better for them that they have work already lined up. | |||
"It was not about immigration it was about controlled immigration, there is a big difference I don't believe that at all. When people were talking about immigration, they were talking about the strain on public services, the strain on doctors, housing, education etc. None of that is about controlling upwards is it? Its people believing that the overall number needs to be reduced. I challenge you to provide one single quote from the Vote Leave campaign or any senior campaigner BEFORE the referendum saying that they wanted immigration to INCREASE, but to be controlled. Name one Remain campaigner who said they wanted immigration to INCREASE" I think that's 2 nil to you  | |||
"Many Brexiters suggest that a UK outside of the EU will lead to greater economic prospects and the loss of EU oversight will promote growth without EU red tape hindering them. If Brexit is a major success and companies expand and fill their order books, where will the employees come from to fuel this growth? As I understand, the current migrant surge is now almost exclusively economically lead (unless I have missed the queues of millions of EU citizens claiming dole?) So how will a successful Brexit that leads to increased job opportunities be fuelled? Is it possible that a successful Brexit will do the exact opposite of what many Brexiters wanted and actually increase immigration?" No, its not possible another whinging remainers thread | |||
| |||
| |||
"Maybe with controlled immigration and a better post-brexit economy we might a) start training our own population in the skills that we take from other countries, b) enhance wages through supply and demand, and c) reduce the number of zero hours contracts, May was yesterday on Marr talking about the need to train our own people as doctors, nurses, etc Among other things" And you believe that when the same conservative party have just scrapped bursaries for student nurses?  | |||
"Maybe with controlled immigration and a better post-brexit economy we might a) start training our own population in the skills that we take from other countries, b) enhance wages through supply and demand, and c) reduce the number of zero hours contracts, May was yesterday on Marr talking about the need to train our own people as doctors, nurses, etc Among other things" Yay  Let's all have massive pay rises! The country needs a good solid dose of inflation. With luck we can price our companies out of the market completely That way we can return to the good old days of the late 70's early 80's when we lost our manufacturing base | |||
"Let's be real here. If the UK is successful post Brexit there will consequentially be record high immigration. Who could argue though with immigration that is economically lead? When the UK is successful post Brexit if we need immigrants we will decide which ones and how many. We are successful now, and we need immigrants now, and we need more in the future." But we are not post Brexit YET. | |||
"Maybe with controlled immigration and a better post-brexit economy we might a) start training our own population in the skills that we take from other countries, b) enhance wages through supply and demand, and c) reduce the number of zero hours contracts, May was yesterday on Marr talking about the need to train our own people as doctors, nurses, etc Among other things Yay Let's all have massive pay rises! The country needs a good solid dose of inflation. With luck we can price our companies out of the market completely That way we can return to the good old days of the late 70's early 80's when we lost our manufacturing base"This country lost it manufacturing base because of greedy company owners putting too much profit into their back pocket in stead of investing in their own company and training more people. | |||
" This country lost it manufacturing base because of greedy company owners putting too much profit into their back pocket in stead of investing in their own company and training more people." Do you actually believe the things that you write? Energy, land, premises and staff are all colossally more expensive in the UK than in Asia. Low tech manufacturing has left these shores forever and wont come back because of price demands. It has nothing to do with anything other than production costs and product retail value in a globalised market. | |||
" This country lost it manufacturing base because of greedy company owners putting too much profit into their back pocket in stead of investing in their own company and training more people. Do you actually believe the things that you write? Energy, land, premises and staff are all colossally more expensive in the UK than in Asia. Low tech manufacturing has left these shores forever and wont come back because of price demands. It has nothing to do with anything other than production costs and product retail value in a globalised market." So globalisation has helped put thousands of uk workers out of work and you are still all for it just one question as technology grows where exactly are our kids supposed to work? | |||
" This country lost it manufacturing base because of greedy company owners putting too much profit into their back pocket in stead of investing in their own company and training more people. Do you actually believe the things that you write? Energy, land, premises and staff are all colossally more expensive in the UK than in Asia. Low tech manufacturing has left these shores forever and wont come back because of price demands. It has nothing to do with anything other than production costs and product retail value in a globalised market." Over the last 20 years 20,000 jobs were lost in Stoke in the pottery industry due to the reasons you cite. Now it is starting to grow again slowly and some firms are doing well and expanding. Why is that? | |||
" This country lost it manufacturing base because of greedy company owners putting too much profit into their back pocket in stead of investing in their own company and training more people. Do you actually believe the things that you write? Energy, land, premises and staff are all colossally more expensive in the UK than in Asia. Low tech manufacturing has left these shores forever and wont come back because of price demands. It has nothing to do with anything other than production costs and product retail value in a globalised market." Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it my opinion is different, I worked in heavy engineering for over 40 years and saw it decline year in year out with no investment what so ever. | |||
| |||
"Maybe with controlled immigration and a better post-brexit economy we might a) start training our own population in the skills that we take from other countries, b) enhance wages through supply and demand, and c) reduce the number of zero hours contracts, May was yesterday on Marr talking about the need to train our own people as doctors, nurses, etc Among other things And you believe that when the same conservative party have just scrapped bursaries for student nurses? "I think you'll find that labour are just as bad... if not worse. But what you're saying is that it's ok to let other (poorer) countries train health professionals, so that we can employ those people from those other (poorer) countries, thus keeping those other poorer countries poor? | |||
".... But what you're saying is that it's ok to let other (poorer) countries train health professionals, so that we can employ those people from those other (poorer) countries, thus keeping those other poorer countries poor? " During a recent stay in hospital the Nursing team around me was Irish, English and Spanish. Ireland and Spain are not poor countries. | |||
".... But what you're saying is that it's ok to let other (poorer) countries train health professionals, so that we can employ those people from those other (poorer) countries, thus keeping those other poorer countries poor? During a recent stay in hospital the Nursing team around me was Irish, English and Spanish. Ireland and Spain are not poor countries." The UK is not poor our NHS is just under funded as are many other industries. | |||
" This country lost it manufacturing base because of greedy company owners putting too much profit into their back pocket in stead of investing in their own company and training more people. Do you actually believe the things that you write? Energy, land, premises and staff are all colossally more expensive in the UK than in Asia. Low tech manufacturing has left these shores forever and wont come back because of price demands. It has nothing to do with anything other than production costs and product retail value in a globalised market. So globalisation has helped put thousands of uk workers out of work and you are still all for it just one question as technology grows where exactly are our kids supposed to work?" Where the jobs are. That's the beauty of globalisation. As we become more united pay and conditions will standardise and ultimately (probably a couple of hundred years from now), economic migrancy will disappear as there won't be such massive variances in the wealth of different regions. I now await mass abuse for my optimistic view for the future of humanity | |||
".... But what you're saying is that it's ok to let other (poorer) countries train health professionals, so that we can employ those people from those other (poorer) countries, thus keeping those other poorer countries poor? During a recent stay in hospital the Nursing team around me was Irish, English and Spanish. Ireland and Spain are not poor countries." So tell that to the 1 in 5 people in Spain who are unemployed. Or the 43% of the youth that can't find a job | |||
".... But what you're saying is that it's ok to let other (poorer) countries train health professionals, so that we can employ those people from those other (poorer) countries, thus keeping those other poorer countries poor? During a recent stay in hospital the Nursing team around me was Irish, English and Spanish. Ireland and Spain are not poor countries. The UK is not poor our NHS is just under funded as are many other industries." So isn't it a shame that the government has had to spend £70 bn in monetary policy measures as a result of Brexit rather than investing in our NHS? | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Do you know places like Nigeria and other countries we send money to ? Well the money never reaches the people it's all kept by bent crooked people Just a thought "Im gonna take a wild stab in the dark, and guess you have never actually worked in international development. Am I right or wrong? | |||
".... But what you're saying is that it's ok to let other (poorer) countries train health professionals, so that we can employ those people from those other (poorer) countries, thus keeping those other poorer countries poor? During a recent stay in hospital the Nursing team around me was Irish, English and Spanish. Ireland and Spain are not poor countries." Is Spain poorer than the UK? Is Ireland? Last time I was in hospital there was eastern Europeans, Africans, Asians, Phillip Inis etc.... all poorer countries than the UK.... | |||
".... But what you're saying is that it's ok to let other (poorer) countries train health professionals, so that we can employ those people from those other (poorer) countries, thus keeping those other poorer countries poor? During a recent stay in hospital the Nursing team around me was Irish, English and Spanish. Ireland and Spain are not poor countries. The UK is not poor our NHS is just under funded as are many other industries." for the past 25 years I have used private health care and the times used, it has been spot on BUPA & AXA PPP are top notch | |||
"M. People on this very forum have suggested that immigrants are shot or fed to sharks! " . Or??... Nobody told me there was a choice  | |||
"Many Brexiters suggest that a UK outside of the EU will lead to greater economic prospects and the loss of EU oversight will promote growth without EU red tape hindering them. If Brexit is a major success and companies expand and fill their order books, where will the employees come from to fuel this growth? As I understand, the current migrant surge is now almost exclusively economically lead (unless I have missed the queues of millions of EU citizens claiming dole?) So how will a successful Brexit that leads to increased job opportunities be fuelled? Is it possible that a successful Brexit will do the exact opposite of what many Brexiters wanted and actually increase immigration? No one wants to stop people coming to the UK but we do need control over who and how many. If there are jobs, houses and school places available then I,m sure as many people as are needed will be allowed to enter the UK." So you will be happy with more immigration than we have now as long as there are job demands? You see on this forum and elsewhere the Brexit pitch is that Britain will do far better outside the EU than it it. By default then that will mean bigger demand for employees and with a stagnant birth rate that can only come from immigration. Therefore Brexit means more immigration than we have now. | |||
"Many Brexiters suggest that a UK outside of the EU will lead to greater economic prospects and the loss of EU oversight will promote growth without EU red tape hindering them. If Brexit is a major success and companies expand and fill their order books, where will the employees come from to fuel this growth? As I understand, the current migrant surge is now almost exclusively economically lead (unless I have missed the queues of millions of EU citizens claiming dole?) So how will a successful Brexit that leads to increased job opportunities be fuelled? Is it possible that a successful Brexit will do the exact opposite of what many Brexiters wanted and actually increase immigration? No one wants to stop people coming to the UK but we do need control over who and how many. If there are jobs, houses and school places available then I,m sure as many people as are needed will be allowed to enter the UK. So you will be happy with more immigration than we have now as long as there are job demands? You see on this forum and elsewhere the Brexit pitch is that Britain will do far better outside the EU than it it. By default then that will mean bigger demand for employees and with a stagnant birth rate that can only come from immigration. Therefore Brexit means more immigration than we have now. " therefore why don't you support it? | |||
".... But what you're saying is that it's ok to let other (poorer) countries train health professionals, so that we can employ those people from those other (poorer) countries, thus keeping those other poorer countries poor? During a recent stay in hospital the Nursing team around me was Irish, English and Spanish. Ireland and Spain are not poor countries. The UK is not poor our NHS is just under funded as are many other industries. So isn't it a shame that the government has had to spend £70 bn in monetary policy measures as a result of Brexit rather than investing in our NHS? " Yes it is but it will be worth it in the end Brexit has nothing to do with poor NHS funding BEFORE the referendum it is also a shame that people like you wont give Brexit a chance but I,ll bet in years to come you,ll gladly reap the benefits it will bring. | |||
| |||
"Do you know places like Nigeria and other countries we send money to ? Well the money never reaches the people it's all kept by bent crooked people Just a thought
Im gonna take a wild stab in the dark, and guess you have never actually worked in international development. Am I right or wrong? "Me personally I haven't ! But I know people who work for charities in the U.K. And in the countries they send the money to . An from what I gather the people at the other end receiving the money are dipping into it for their own personal gains What's your view People see a big pot of money and don't touch it , I think not | |||
"Do you know places like Nigeria and other countries we send money to ? Well the money never reaches the people it's all kept by bent crooked people Just a thought
Im gonna take a wild stab in the dark, and guess you have never actually worked in international development. Am I right or wrong?
Me personally I haven't !
But I know people who work for charities in the U.K. And in the countries they send the money to . An from what I gather the people at the other end receiving the money are dipping into it for their own personal gains
What's your view
People see a big pot of money and don't touch it , I think not "The projects that are funded are well audited and visited by the funders, progress reports are written and filed, outcomes and outputs measured and reported etc. By the time it gets to the multitude of grassroots organisations the grants are relatively small amounts compared to what you might be imagining they are. Its not that blank cheques are being written or that large sums of money are deposited into bank accounts never to be seen again. | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good" You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats?" so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you? | |||
| |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you?" I didn’t mention immigration at all in my post. | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you? I didn’t mention immigration at all in my post." who are the "outsiders" then? Do you ever read anything you've posted? | |||
"Do you know places like Nigeria and other countries we send money to ? Well the money never reaches the people it's all kept by bent crooked people Just a thought
Im gonna take a wild stab in the dark, and guess you have never actually worked in international development. Am I right or wrong?
Me personally I haven't !
But I know people who work for charities in the U.K. And in the countries they send the money to . An from what I gather the people at the other end receiving the money are dipping into it for their own personal gains
What's your view
People see a big pot of money and don't touch it , I think not
The projects that are funded are well audited and visited by the funders, progress reports are written and filed, outcomes and outputs measured and reported etc. By the time it gets to the multitude of grassroots organisations the grants are relatively small amounts compared to what you might be imagining they are. Its not that blank cheques are being written or that large sums of money are deposited into bank accounts never to be seen again."But your missing my point .... it's charity If £1m is raised £1m should be spent on tools labour and equipment not put in "fat cats" pockets | |||
| |||
"Do you know places like Nigeria and other countries we send money to ? Well the money never reaches the people it's all kept by bent crooked people Just a thought
Im gonna take a wild stab in the dark, and guess you have never actually worked in international development. Am I right or wrong?
Me personally I haven't !
But I know people who work for charities in the U.K. And in the countries they send the money to . An from what I gather the people at the other end receiving the money are dipping into it for their own personal gains
What's your view
People see a big pot of money and don't touch it , I think not
The projects that are funded are well audited and visited by the funders, progress reports are written and filed, outcomes and outputs measured and reported etc. By the time it gets to the multitude of grassroots organisations the grants are relatively small amounts compared to what you might be imagining they are. Its not that blank cheques are being written or that large sums of money are deposited into bank accounts never to be seen again.
But your missing my point .... it's charity
If £1m is raised £1m should be spent on tools labour and equipment not put in "fat cats" pockets "I guess I must be missing your point, I thought you were talking about the international development budget, rather than charities which are independent bodies. What "fat cats" are you talking about? Are you talking about the salaries of professional staff, or about corruption? | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you? I didn’t mention immigration at all in my post. who are the "outsiders" then? Do you ever read anything you've posted?" You seem to take the exact polar opposite view from the consensus on every single issue going. Is a growing economy generally considered to be good or bad? | |||
"Looking forward to seeing immigration levels on the future. I don't believe May wants to reduce it. Control it, yes. But to get the most profit from them. Their tax. Imagine if emigration is higher than immigration. Then tax contributions go down." true, which doesn't help the countries in the EU we are taking the labour from much does it? It's all about control not a mass free for all. The future of the economy depends on investment in training, education and technology, not low paid jobs and immigration. A 10 year old today will probably be doing a job that doesn't even exist yet and could possibly be working until they are 80. America is the largest economy in the world partly because of natural resources but mainly because of technology. If it was purely down to the numbers of people or workers then somewhere like India who have 4 times the number of workers than the USA would be number one. | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you? I didn’t mention immigration at all in my post. who are the "outsiders" then? Do you ever read anything you've posted? You seem to take the exact polar opposite view from the consensus on every single issue going. Is a growing economy generally considered to be good or bad?" do you ever digest anything you read? I said if it has to slow down, not not grow | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good" This investment in training and technology... I must have missed that in the Brexit campaign. Do remind us what is new? It appears that you are suggesting that outside of the EU and in our brave new isolationist world a miraculous revolution in training and technology is going to suddenly appear and enable huge growth without the need for people that need "training?...!" Unlike many Brexiters, you are at least now accepting that the economy will slow down because you have finally realised that a booming economy means more employment. The whole Brexit campaign is broadly a complete con suggesting that the economy will be stronger out of the EU and at the same time there will be less immigration. Actually - YOU are right. The economy will slow down, immigration will fall and so consequentially tax receipts will fall and the pressure on funding the NHS, schools and all the rest of the infrastructure that we need will also fall. | |||
"Looking forward to seeing immigration levels on the future. I don't believe May wants to reduce it. Control it, yes. But to get the most profit from them. Their tax. Imagine if emigration is higher than immigration. Then tax contributions go down. true, which doesn't help the countries in the EU we are taking the labour from much does it? It's all about control not a mass free for all. The future of the economy depends on investment in training, education and technology, not low paid jobs and immigration. A 10 year old today will probably be doing a job that doesn't even exist yet and could possibly be working until they are 80. America is the largest economy in the world partly because of natural resources but mainly because of technology. If it was purely down to the numbers of people or workers then somewhere like India who have 4 times the number of workers than the USA would be number one. " Why not bring that argument to a national, regional and local level. At what point in history do you draw the line that Scotland and England should be connected but not England and France? Why should a guy from Sunderland be allowed to freely and simply leave his area of high unemployment and be allowed to live and work in London but not in Barcelona? The free movement of people is an inherently good thing and this will only be realised in the UK when we are out of the EU and the next time that a recession arrives and our youth become limited in their opportunities to seek work elsewhere. | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good This investment in training and technology... I must have missed that in the Brexit campaign. Do remind us what is new? It appears that you are suggesting that outside of the EU and in our brave new isolationist world a miraculous revolution in training and technology is going to suddenly appear and enable huge growth without the need for people that need "training?...!" Unlike many Brexiters, you are at least now accepting that the economy will slow down because you have finally realised that a booming economy means more employment. The whole Brexit campaign is broadly a complete con suggesting that the economy will be stronger out of the EU and at the same time there will be less immigration. Actually - YOU are right. The economy will slow down, immigration will fall and so consequentially tax receipts will fall and the pressure on funding the NHS, schools and all the rest of the infrastructure that we need will also fall." not necessarily and I am just pointing out that that is the way forward, its just common sense, all you are doing with more and more immigration is creating a giant Ponzi scheme that is certain to fail and a country that will be a lot worse off when it does | |||
"Looking forward to seeing immigration levels on the future. I don't believe May wants to reduce it. Control it, yes. But to get the most profit from them. Their tax. Imagine if emigration is higher than immigration. Then tax contributions go down. true, which doesn't help the countries in the EU we are taking the labour from much does it? It's all about control not a mass free for all. The future of the economy depends on investment in training, education and technology, not low paid jobs and immigration. A 10 year old today will probably be doing a job that doesn't even exist yet and could possibly be working until they are 80. America is the largest economy in the world partly because of natural resources but mainly because of technology. If it was purely down to the numbers of people or workers then somewhere like India who have 4 times the number of workers than the USA would be number one. Why not bring that argument to a national, regional and local level. At what point in history do you draw the line that Scotland and England should be connected but not England and France? Why should a guy from Sunderland be allowed to freely and simply leave his area of high unemployment and be allowed to live and work in London but not in Barcelona? The free movement of people is an inherently good thing and this will only be realised in the UK when we are out of the EU and the next time that a recession arrives and our youth become limited in their opportunities to seek work elsewhere. " Well take that arguement further, why doesn't the EU believe in or allow free movement into the EU? | |||
"Looking forward to seeing immigration levels on the future. I don't believe May wants to reduce it. Control it, yes. But to get the most profit from them. Their tax. Imagine if emigration is higher than immigration. Then tax contributions go down. true, which doesn't help the countries in the EU we are taking the labour from much does it? It's all about control not a mass free for all. The future of the economy depends on investment in training, education and technology, not low paid jobs and immigration. A 10 year old today will probably be doing a job that doesn't even exist yet and could possibly be working until they are 80. America is the largest economy in the world partly because of natural resources but mainly because of technology. If it was purely down to the numbers of people or workers then somewhere like India who have 4 times the number of workers than the USA would be number one. Why not bring that argument to a national, regional and local level. At what point in history do you draw the line that Scotland and England should be connected but not England and France? Why should a guy from Sunderland be allowed to freely and simply leave his area of high unemployment and be allowed to live and work in London but not in Barcelona? The free movement of people is an inherently good thing and this will only be realised in the UK when we are out of the EU and the next time that a recession arrives and our youth become limited in their opportunities to seek work elsewhere. Well take that arguement further, why doesn't the EU believe in or allow free movement into the EU?" It does believe fundamentally in the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people. Subject to certain economic conditions the EU will look to expand to provide those freedoms for an ever increasing market. The future of the world is one with less artificial lines, not more and the EU is doing its bit by providing opportunities for more and more people without damaging the rights of those who already benefit from it. | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good This investment in training and technology... I must have missed that in the Brexit campaign. Do remind us what is new? It appears that you are suggesting that outside of the EU and in our brave new isolationist world a miraculous revolution in training and technology is going to suddenly appear and enable huge growth without the need for people that need "training?...!" Unlike many Brexiters, you are at least now accepting that the economy will slow down because you have finally realised that a booming economy means more employment. The whole Brexit campaign is broadly a complete con suggesting that the economy will be stronger out of the EU and at the same time there will be less immigration. Actually - YOU are right. The economy will slow down, immigration will fall and so consequentially tax receipts will fall and the pressure on funding the NHS, schools and all the rest of the infrastructure that we need will also fall. not necessarily and I am just pointing out that that is the way forward, its just common sense, all you are doing with more and more immigration is creating a giant Ponzi scheme that is certain to fail and a country that will be a lot worse off when it does" The problem with your train of thought is that it is a completely one dimensional concept motivated by fear and it fails to take into account emigration from the UK, short term immigration (auf wiedersehen pet in reverse) as well as those who will permanently settle. Until the entire basis of how our economy changes all of our future well-being will be reliant on the tax receipts being provided by those who are in work and certainly a conservative government wont be changing it. There were plenty of things that this or any previous government could and should have done to limit the drain on the public purse but they chose not to. It is inherently good to have people coming in to the country to fill and employment void created by a booming economy and IF Brexit is a success, you will absolutely NOT see any fall in immigration. Indeed IF Brexit is going to be the success that is claimed then immigration will have to necessarily increase above current levels to support that growth over and above what it is today. | |||
"Looking forward to seeing immigration levels on the future. I don't believe May wants to reduce it. Control it, yes. But to get the most profit from them. Their tax. Imagine if emigration is higher than immigration. Then tax contributions go down. true, which doesn't help the countries in the EU we are taking the labour from much does it? It's all about control not a mass free for all. The future of the economy depends on investment in training, education and technology, not low paid jobs and immigration. A 10 year old today will probably be doing a job that doesn't even exist yet and could possibly be working until they are 80. America is the largest economy in the world partly because of natural resources but mainly because of technology. If it was purely down to the numbers of people or workers then somewhere like India who have 4 times the number of workers than the USA would be number one. Why not bring that argument to a national, regional and local level. At what point in history do you draw the line that Scotland and England should be connected but not England and France? Why should a guy from Sunderland be allowed to freely and simply leave his area of high unemployment and be allowed to live and work in London but not in Barcelona? The free movement of people is an inherently good thing and this will only be realised in the UK when we are out of the EU and the next time that a recession arrives and our youth become limited in their opportunities to seek work elsewhere. Well take that arguement further, why doesn't the EU believe in or allow free movement into the EU? It does believe fundamentally in the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people. Subject to certain economic conditions the EU will look to expand to provide those freedoms for an ever increasing market. The future of the world is one with less artificial lines, not more and the EU is doing its bit by providing opportunities for more and more people without damaging the rights of those who already benefit from it." it does but subject to certain economic conditions? 
isn't that simply what the UK wants to do?
Is it not the EU that puts barriers up against these artificial lines and the UK that wants to trade freely? It is the EU that is inward looking not the UK | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you? I didn’t mention immigration at all in my post. who are the "outsiders" then? Do you ever read anything you've posted? You seem to take the exact polar opposite view from the consensus on every single issue going. Is a growing economy generally considered to be good or bad? do you ever digest anything you read? I said if it has to slow down, not not grow " So at the moment our growth is 0.7%, you think that should reduce, but not stop entirely? the IFS says that leaving the single market would lose us 4% of GDP, so that would put us into negative growth (a recession), so you must therefore agree that leaving the single market and having negative growth would be a ridiculous suggestion that will only make things better, right? Surely growth in the economy with immigration is better than a shrinking economy, just to control immigration? | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4%" We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. | |||
| |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you? I didn’t mention immigration at all in my post. who are the "outsiders" then? Do you ever read anything you've posted? You seem to take the exact polar opposite view from the consensus on every single issue going. Is a growing economy generally considered to be good or bad? do you ever digest anything you read? I said if it has to slow down, not not grow So at the moment our growth is 0.7%, you think that should reduce, but not stop entirely? the IFS says that leaving the single market would lose us 4% of GDP, so that would put us into negative growth (a recession), so you must therefore agree that leaving the single market and having negative growth would be a ridiculous suggestion that will only make things better, right? Surely growth in the economy with immigration is better than a shrinking economy, just to control immigration?" No body knows what will happen until it does and that will not be for 2 years, a lot can happen in 2 years there are 2 main EU countries having Elections for a start. Also other EU countries are starting to look at the number of Refugees/Migrants coming into EU things are changing all the time so we will all have to wait and see. | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you? I didn’t mention immigration at all in my post. who are the "outsiders" then? Do you ever read anything you've posted? You seem to take the exact polar opposite view from the consensus on every single issue going. Is a growing economy generally considered to be good or bad? do you ever digest anything you read? I said if it has to slow down, not not grow So at the moment our growth is 0.7%, you think that should reduce, but not stop entirely? the IFS says that leaving the single market would lose us 4% of GDP, so that would put us into negative growth (a recession), so you must therefore agree that leaving the single market and having negative growth would be a ridiculous suggestion that will only make things better, right? Surely growth in the economy with immigration is better than a shrinking economy, just to control immigration? No body knows what will happen until it does and that will not be for 2 years, a lot can happen in 2 years there are 2 main EU countries having Elections for a start. Also other EU countries are starting to look at the number of Refugees/Migrants coming into EU things are changing all the time so we will all have to wait and see." Ok, so as soon as you see we are in a recession, then you will change your mind and want to rejoin the EU, right? | |||
"Do you know places like Nigeria and other countries we send money to ? Well the money never reaches the people it's all kept by bent crooked people Just a thought
Im gonna take a wild stab in the dark, and guess you have never actually worked in international development. Am I right or wrong?
Me personally I haven't !
But I know people who work for charities in the U.K. And in the countries they send the money to . An from what I gather the people at the other end receiving the money are dipping into it for their own personal gains
What's your view
People see a big pot of money and don't touch it , I think not
The projects that are funded are well audited and visited by the funders, progress reports are written and filed, outcomes and outputs measured and reported etc. By the time it gets to the multitude of grassroots organisations the grants are relatively small amounts compared to what you might be imagining they are. Its not that blank cheques are being written or that large sums of money are deposited into bank accounts never to be seen again.
But your missing my point .... it's charity
If £1m is raised £1m should be spent on tools labour and equipment not put in "fat cats" pockets
I guess I must be missing your point, I thought you were talking about the international development budget, rather than charities which are independent bodies.
What "fat cats" are you talking about? Are you talking about the salaries of professional staff, or about corruption? "Corruption and big wages for the fat cats of the charity !! It's charity ..... big wages is basically theft | |||
"Do you know places like Nigeria and other countries we send money to ? Well the money never reaches the people it's all kept by bent crooked people Just a thought
Im gonna take a wild stab in the dark, and guess you have never actually worked in international development. Am I right or wrong?
Me personally I haven't !
But I know people who work for charities in the U.K. And in the countries they send the money to . An from what I gather the people at the other end receiving the money are dipping into it for their own personal gains
What's your view
People see a big pot of money and don't touch it , I think not
The projects that are funded are well audited and visited by the funders, progress reports are written and filed, outcomes and outputs measured and reported etc. By the time it gets to the multitude of grassroots organisations the grants are relatively small amounts compared to what you might be imagining they are. Its not that blank cheques are being written or that large sums of money are deposited into bank accounts never to be seen again.
But your missing my point .... it's charity
If £1m is raised £1m should be spent on tools labour and equipment not put in "fat cats" pockets
I guess I must be missing your point, I thought you were talking about the international development budget, rather than charities which are independent bodies.
What "fat cats" are you talking about? Are you talking about the salaries of professional staff, or about corruption?
Corruption and big wages for the fat cats of the charity !!
It's charity ..... big wages is basically theft "So if someone is running an organization with a £100m turnover and say 1500 staff and 5,000 volunteers, what kind of salary do you think is required to get someone with the required skills? Or a skilled trauma surgeon working in somewhere like Afghan, Yemen or Syria. Let's say they have 15 years of training and experience and run the risk of being kidnapped or bombed, how much should that person be paid? | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you? I didn’t mention immigration at all in my post. who are the "outsiders" then? Do you ever read anything you've posted? You seem to take the exact polar opposite view from the consensus on every single issue going. Is a growing economy generally considered to be good or bad? do you ever digest anything you read? I said if it has to slow down, not not grow So at the moment our growth is 0.7%, you think that should reduce, but not stop entirely? the IFS says that leaving the single market would lose us 4% of GDP, so that would put us into negative growth (a recession), so you must therefore agree that leaving the single market and having negative growth would be a ridiculous suggestion that will only make things better, right? Surely growth in the economy with immigration is better than a shrinking economy, just to control immigration? No body knows what will happen until it does and that will not be for 2 years, a lot can happen in 2 years there are 2 main EU countries having Elections for a start. Also other EU countries are starting to look at the number of Refugees/Migrants coming into EU things are changing all the time so we will all have to wait and see. Ok, so as soon as you see we are in a recession, then you will change your mind and want to rejoin the EU, right? " Wrong the sooner we get out of the EU the better I,m not saying it will be easy the first 5 to 10 years could be hard on everyone but after that when we new trade agreements in place we will be a lot better off, in my opinion. You see unlike you I and a lot of other people are willing to give Brexit a chance you just give it doom and gloom because its not what you voted for give it a chance wait the 2 years and see what kind of a deal we get. | |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you? I didn’t mention immigration at all in my post. who are the "outsiders" then? Do you ever read anything you've posted? You seem to take the exact polar opposite view from the consensus on every single issue going. Is a growing economy generally considered to be good or bad? do you ever digest anything you read? I said if it has to slow down, not not grow So at the moment our growth is 0.7%, you think that should reduce, but not stop entirely? the IFS says that leaving the single market would lose us 4% of GDP, so that would put us into negative growth (a recession), so you must therefore agree that leaving the single market and having negative growth would be a ridiculous suggestion that will only make things better, right? Surely growth in the economy with immigration is better than a shrinking economy, just to control immigration? No body knows what will happen until it does and that will not be for 2 years, a lot can happen in 2 years there are 2 main EU countries having Elections for a start. Also other EU countries are starting to look at the number of Refugees/Migrants coming into EU things are changing all the time so we will all have to wait and see. Ok, so as soon as you see we are in a recession, then you will change your mind and want to rejoin the EU, right? Wrong the sooner we get out of the EU the better I,m not saying it will be easy the first 5 to 10 years could be hard on everyone but after that when we new trade agreements in place we will be a lot better off, in my opinion. You see unlike you I and a lot of other people are willing to give Brexit a chance you just give it doom and gloom because its not what you voted for give it a chance wait the 2 years and see what kind of a deal we get. " I'm willing to give the EU a chance and it's worked really well for us. I'm not going to give Brexit a chance, because it's a crap idea that is going to be terrible for the UK, and the rest of the world's economy. | |||
| |||
"Growth in the UK economy will come from investment in training and technology, not the uncontrolled influx of cheap labour. Immigration should be kept to something like what would be a natural population growth if needed. Yes immigrants should have a job before they arrive, a decent place to live, school places arranged for their children if needed and access to health care through health insuranance for the first 2-5 years until they have paid into the system. This will benefit everyone, in particular the migrants themselves. But immigration should not be solely based on economics but the good of society. It seems the more of us there are, the more distant from eachother we become. We practically live on top of eachother in places but we're further away from eachother spiritually, socially and morally than ever before. If the economy has to slow down a bit to inprove this. Good You can’t arrange a school place until you are actually living in an area. A slow down in the economy will make everything you complain about worse, not better. I can’t even comprehend how you consider a worse economy will make healthcare better, or making housing better, or will make us spiritually better off. It has been austerity that has made this country turn on itself and its neighbours, where once again politicians have been able to exploit the naivety of some to blame all of their problems on “outsiders”, rather than the people in power who have caused the mess in the first place. How many benefits cheats have gone to prison compared to how many banking cheats? so you think the answer to grow an economy is to simply throw more workers/people into it do you? I didn’t mention immigration at all in my post. who are the "outsiders" then? Do you ever read anything you've posted? You seem to take the exact polar opposite view from the consensus on every single issue going. Is a growing economy generally considered to be good or bad? do you ever digest anything you read? I said if it has to slow down, not not grow So at the moment our growth is 0.7%, you think that should reduce, but not stop entirely? the IFS says that leaving the single market would lose us 4% of GDP, so that would put us into negative growth (a recession), so you must therefore agree that leaving the single market and having negative growth would be a ridiculous suggestion that will only make things better, right? Surely growth in the economy with immigration is better than a shrinking economy, just to control immigration? No body knows what will happen until it does and that will not be for 2 years, a lot can happen in 2 years there are 2 main EU countries having Elections for a start. Also other EU countries are starting to look at the number of Refugees/Migrants coming into EU things are changing all the time so we will all have to wait and see. Ok, so as soon as you see we are in a recession, then you will change your mind and want to rejoin the EU, right? Wrong the sooner we get out of the EU the better I,m not saying it will be easy the first 5 to 10 years could be hard on everyone but after that when we new trade agreements in place we will be a lot better off, in my opinion. You see unlike you I and a lot of other people are willing to give Brexit a chance you just give it doom and gloom because its not what you voted for give it a chance wait the 2 years and see what kind of a deal we get. I'm willing to give the EU a chance and it's worked really well for us. I'm not going to give Brexit a chance, because it's a crap idea that is going to be terrible for the UK, and the rest of the world's economy." The EU had its chance its got too big and thinks it can tell every other country in it how to run their country well they wont be telling the UK for much longer and you will have to live with it. | |||
"There is a lot of talk about the UK government wanting control over immigration, did the UK government have any control when Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU?" i Personally, immigration was the least of my concerns when I voted to leave the outdated, bloated and self-regulating EU organisation. But, no, we did not have control of immigration from the EU before or after those countries joined. I am unsure of your point. | |||
"There is a lot of talk about the UK government wanting control over immigration, did the UK government have any control when Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU?i Personally, immigration was the least of my concerns when I voted to leave the outdated, bloated and self-regulating EU organisation. But, no, we did not have control of immigration from the EU before or after those countries joined. I am unsure of your point." Anyone else going to answer? | |||
 | |||
"There is a lot of talk about the UK government wanting control over immigration, did the UK government have any control when Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU?i Personally, immigration was the least of my concerns when I voted to leave the outdated, bloated and self-regulating EU organisation. But, no, we did not have control of immigration from the EU before or after those countries joined. I am unsure of your point. Anyone else going to answer? " Why should someone else answer its your post they are replying to, | |||
"There is a lot of talk about the UK government wanting control over immigration, did the UK government have any control when Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU?i Personally, immigration was the least of my concerns when I voted to leave the outdated, bloated and self-regulating EU organisation. But, no, we did not have control of immigration from the EU before or after those countries joined. I am unsure of your point. Anyone else going to answer? Why should someone else answer its your post they are replying to, "Are you going to answer the question? | |||
"There is a lot of talk about the UK government wanting control over immigration, did the UK government have any control when Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU?i Personally, immigration was the least of my concerns when I voted to leave the outdated, bloated and self-regulating EU organisation. But, no, we did not have control of immigration from the EU before or after those countries joined. I am unsure of your point. Anyone else going to answer? Why should someone else answer its your post they are replying to,
Are you going to answer the question?"Your question has already been answered why does anyone else have to answer? You know we had no control over immigration we could have vetoed their application to join. | |||
| |||
"There is a lot of talk about the UK government wanting control over immigration, did the UK government have any control when Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined the EU?i Personally, immigration was the least of my concerns when I voted to leave the outdated, bloated and self-regulating EU organisation. But, no, we did not have control of immigration from the EU before or after those countries joined. I am unsure of your point. Anyone else going to answer? Why should someone else answer its your post they are replying to,
Are you going to answer the question?
Your question has already been answered why does anyone else have to answer?
You know we had no control over immigration we could have vetoed their application to join."Because the UK government DID have control over immigration from those countries for 10 years, exactly what people say they want. We had that. We also have complete control over the 50% of immigration that comes from outside the EU, but Brexiters don't ever seem to want to talk about that for some reason. | |||
"It's irrelevant, there are going to be some very dissapointed people when they see EU immigration cease and non EU immigration soar in the next decade....." Yup. Especially those people who say that they voted "to keep the Muslims out". | |||
"It's irrelevant, there are going to be some very dissapointed people when they see EU immigration cease and non EU immigration soar in the next decade..... Yup. Especially those people who say that they voted "to keep the Muslims out"." Exactly | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair." Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that?" You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? " I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly? | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly?" Tony Blair had the option not to remove the lock on those newly admitted countries. On our behalf, he had that control over migrants coming from those countries. There was control but the govt of the day chose not to exert that control. | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly?" There was a 10 year period where the UK government had control, EXACTLY what you say that you want. So why dont you admit that you don't actually want "control" of immigration, you just want "less" immigration? In answer to your question, I think the world economic crash had quite a lot to do with it, plus conservative austerity measures for the past 6 years. It's nice to see the Conservatives taking on some Labour policies and borrowing for investment. Just think how much better we would have been if they had been doing that since 2010. | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly? Tony Blair had the option not to remove the lock on those newly admitted countries. On our behalf, he had that control over migrants coming from those countries. There was control but the govt of the day chose not to exert that control. " Well the majority who voted in the referendum have chosen to take back that control. | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly? Tony Blair had the option not to remove the lock on those newly admitted countries. On our behalf, he had that control over migrants coming from those countries. There was control but the govt of the day chose not to exert that control. Well the majority who voted in the referendum have chosen to take back that control. "Well I hope they are equally happy with the results then. | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly? Tony Blair had the option not to remove the lock on those newly admitted countries. On our behalf, he had that control over migrants coming from those countries. There was control but the govt of the day chose not to exert that control. Well the majority who voted in the referendum have chosen to take back that control.
Well I hope they are equally happy with the results then."Happier than you that's for sure you are going to be very sad for a very long time. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"'Will a successful Brexit mean record high immigration?' A successful Brexit?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!" Yes its funny is,nt it a bit like Ukip wanting a referendum to leave the EU but then they got one OH and got a majority vote to leave so things are looking up. | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly? Tony Blair had the option not to remove the lock on those newly admitted countries. On our behalf, he had that control over migrants coming from those countries. There was control but the govt of the day chose not to exert that control. Well the majority who voted in the referendum have chosen to take back that control. "Take back control?, what makes you think that the public have ANY kind of control over ANYTHING? The government again today spoke about increased immigration from the commonwealth to cover any shortages in certain sectors that are manned by eu immigrants..... That's a person from the African or Indian continents covering the job of a Polish or Slovakian worker here today, that's not reduced immigration.....it's alternative immigration. Countless numbers of people voted to reduce immigration and were fed a lie | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly? Tony Blair had the option not to remove the lock on those newly admitted countries. On our behalf, he had that control over migrants coming from those countries. There was control but the govt of the day chose not to exert that control. Well the majority who voted in the referendum have chosen to take back that control.
Take back control?, what makes you think that the public have ANY kind of control over ANYTHING?
The government again today spoke about increased immigration from the commonwealth to cover any shortages in certain sectors that are manned by eu immigrants.....
That's a person from the African or Indian continents covering the job of a Polish or Slovakian worker here today, that's not reduced immigration.....it's alternative immigration.
Countless numbers of people voted to reduce immigration and were fed a lie"And if they say they voted for "control" we know that's rubbish because that's what the government had, and they werent happy with that. | |||
| |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly? Tony Blair had the option not to remove the lock on those newly admitted countries. On our behalf, he had that control over migrants coming from those countries. There was control but the govt of the day chose not to exert that control. Well the majority who voted in the referendum have chosen to take back that control.
Take back control?, what makes you think that the public have ANY kind of control over ANYTHING?
The government again today spoke about increased immigration from the commonwealth to cover any shortages in certain sectors that are manned by eu immigrants.....
That's a person from the African or Indian continents covering the job of a Polish or Slovakian worker here today, that's not reduced immigration.....it's alternative immigration.
Countless numbers of people voted to reduce immigration and were fed a lie"The public don't and never had control over ANYTHING but the Government will NOT the EU. Its up to the Government to decide who and how many. | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly? Tony Blair had the option not to remove the lock on those newly admitted countries. On our behalf, he had that control over migrants coming from those countries. There was control but the govt of the day chose not to exert that control. Well the majority who voted in the referendum have chosen to take back that control.
Take back control?, what makes you think that the public have ANY kind of control over ANYTHING?
The government again today spoke about increased immigration from the commonwealth to cover any shortages in certain sectors that are manned by eu immigrants.....
That's a person from the African or Indian continents covering the job of a Polish or Slovakian worker here today, that's not reduced immigration.....it's alternative immigration.
Countless numbers of people voted to reduce immigration and were fed a lie
The public don't and never had control over ANYTHING but the Government will NOT the EU. Its up to the Government to decide who and how many. "But you had that before and weren't happy! | |||
"As an aside, in the years just befor Blairs open door policy when immigration was in the tens of thousands, UK growth was around 3-4% We have had open immigration from the EU (and successor orgs) since we joined in the 1970s, thats quite a long time before Blair. Maybe you missed Blairs policy 11 years ago when he opened the door to 8 former communist countries? As I said, before then immigration was in the tens of thousands and UK growth was running at around 3 - 4%. Now its in the 100s of thousands and growth is lower. Any correlation? Or could you explain that? You say you want the government to have "control" over immigration, even if that means immigration goes up. Well that's exactly what Blair had, so what's the problem? I take it you can't answer the question. And once he"d opened the door he had control how exactly? Tony Blair had the option not to remove the lock on those newly admitted countries. On our behalf, he had that control over migrants coming from those countries. There was control but the govt of the day chose not to exert that control. Well the majority who voted in the referendum have chosen to take back that control.
Take back control?, what makes you think that the public have ANY kind of control over ANYTHING?
The government again today spoke about increased immigration from the commonwealth to cover any shortages in certain sectors that are manned by eu immigrants.....
That's a person from the African or Indian continents covering the job of a Polish or Slovakian worker here today, that's not reduced immigration.....it's alternative immigration.
Countless numbers of people voted to reduce immigration and were fed a lie
The public don't and never had control over ANYTHING but the Government will NOT the EU. Its up to the Government to decide who and how many.
But you had that before and weren't happy! "Under EU rules we can make our own rules in 2 years. | |||
