EU referendum

[Ancient Citizen]

What generally happens is fairly well educated, hard working , productive people with the character and get up and go move countries in an attempt to better themselves through hard work and effort. They move countries and improve productivity in that country and often get jobs over locals as they are prepared to work harder for less. See the intra EU immigration or a huge chunk of Mexican migration into the US though that is obviously often illegal and thus harder to collect and quantify the benefit.

The poorest, the least educated, the lazy and those who contribute least to society rarely move, rarely chase bettering themselves in this way be that due to lack of opportunity, aspiration, expectation - each will have different reasons. So it has never been the "dregs of society" ( or whatever the latest nom du jour is from the right) - they stay where they are.

That may well be true, although it's subjective, to say the least. It also ignores completely what has just been discussed, but hey ho.

 

[EalingBlue2]

That may well be true, although it's subjective, to say the least. It also ignores completely what has just been discussed, but hey ho.

It is true for intra EU immigration the type that should be discussed on this thread IE the assertion the poor move to the rush and make the rich poorer.

The othe issue of immigrants/refugees etc fleeing the Middle East and North Africa and the war zones /regimes there is a very different issue and topic and bigger than an away issue and in many ways irellevant to an in out vote

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Hundreds of thousands of educated and motivated Brits have certainly fled to places like Aus, the US, the Middle East etc.

No one has suggested that capital and labour doesn't flow to the wealthier areas, it is just it usually makes those areas wealthier, rather than the equaliser nonsense

I know they have. The big difference is that the countries you mention get to pick and choose who they let in, something that being
in the EU denies recipient countries from doing. This is being wilfully ignored in your ever more frantic efforts to promote unlimited
migration as beneficial. Someone has very recently suggested what you say they haven't in your second paragraph.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I know they have. The big difference is that the countries you mention get to pick and choose who they let in, something that being
in the EU denies recipient countries from doing. This is being wilfully ignored in your ever more frantic efforts to promote unlimited
migration as beneficial. Someone has very recently suggested what you say they haven't in your second paragraph.

They do pick and choose and it is causing in many cases more harm than good. Australia's policy is now costing billions a year And we are housing people off shore at the cost of 6 figure sums per person when they could be here paying tax

Worst of all is the governments Cambodia programme which has seen them resettle two people to Cambodia at a cost of somewhere between 25m and 100m dollars each. Enough money to have built a hospital or a number of schools it is criminally stupid the money wasted here being tough on immigrants for political reasons. One of the dangers of compulsory voting .

Also I would suggest that as we are talking intra EU migration it is inherently limited and it is somewhat funny that such a mighty bastion of the right as yourself has absolutely no faith or true belief in capitalism and free markets as your posts have suggested, though maybe I am attributing free market libertarian views to you incorrectly

 

[CityStu]

It is true for intra EU immigration the type that should be discussed on this thread IE the assertion the poor move to the rush and make the rich poorer.

The othe issue of immigrants/refugees etc fleeing the Middle East and North Africa and the war zones /regimes there is a very different issue and topic and bigger than an away issue and in many ways irellevant to an in out vote

I don't think it's irrelevant. Merkel invited millions of people into Europe, some refugees and some opportunists. Once they've been in the EU for 5 years they'll be eligible for citizenship and then they can move wherever they please. Those who have been settled in less wealthy EU states are going to move to the richer EU states as soon as they get the opportunity.

I agree that the debate of how many refugees to choose to house is different to the EU debate, but the EU throws in the idea that some refugees may be imposed upon us whether we can take them or not.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I don't think it's irrelevant. Merkel invited millions of people into Europe, some refugees and some opportunists. Once they've been in the EU for 5 years they'll be eligible for citizenship and then they can move wherever they please. Those who have been settled in less wealthy EU states are going to move to the richer EU states as soon as they get the opportunity.

I agree that the debate of how many refugees to choose to house is different to the EU debate, but the EU throws in the idea that some refugees may be imposed upon us whether we can take them or not.

Whether we want to take them or not! Or whether we can take them without anyone in the UK suffering any negative impact! That is a different issue , a very different issue.

It also assumes that they are all staying for 5 years and getting citizenship which seems to be the very opposite of what is happening

 

[jonmcity]

Seriously when did any British government have the best interests of the British people at the hart of their policy's.
They talk about human rights as if they are the worst thing that has ever happened to the citizens of the EU.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Seriously when did any British government have the best interests of the British people at the hart of their policy's.
They talk about human rights as if they are the worst thing that has ever happened to the citizens of the EU.

They are fascist human rights though forced on you

 

[blueonblue]

What happens often is people from the wealthier areas of the poorer countries move to the poorest areas of the wealthy countries - same as happens within countries . Aside from refugees it is the poorest least educated who are least mobile

.

Yet if you care to look at what HAS happened in say norfolk, the flood of migrants ( Not refugee`s)are mainly agricultural field workers who came in willing to work for as little £2 an hour, destroying the jobs market for the locals, its no good blaming the farmer who could cut his wage bill drastically, yet not only is no tax & ni being paid ( A direct loss to the country) because the farmer pays the gang master, but we have to pay dole money & benefits to have our own people sit on their arse ( a further loss).

This is repeated in most agricultural area`s in the uk, with the added problem of gangs of foreign young men occupying houses in the cheapest area`s ( Adding to the housing shortage) while sending back what to them is good money home to their families ( Another loss to the country).

No doubt some will get ill or injured, using hospital services and GPs they have not paid one penny towards, most market towns are like a war zone at w/ends with trouble between them and the locals, so the police/ambulance services are used.

This does not even bother looking at long term problems, a lot of them will do it for so long then go home to the house they have bought with the money, only to be replaced by the next wave.

This is the poorer moving into the far wealthier country`s poorer area`s and decimating it, if the local economy is falling then the area suffers.

 

[DiscoSteve]

you'll see historical evidence of this kind of people movement in the donut of poverty/poor-areas that surrounds every decent sized city - including Manchester - you end up with affluent city centres, poor areas and then affluence returns as you move out into the 'burbs