The Labour Government

[Vic]

So we can quite easily accept a EU national an African or an Asian immigrant based on the rules set out by the govt. Thank you for confirming you were wrong and we haven't chosen to not accept European immigrants.

Shame it took so much desperate waffling by yourself

Be fair. You said he was lying. He said, we "chose non-European migration over European migration". You might want to be picky over cause and effect, but it's undeniable that we voted for Brexit and the outcome is clearly less EU migration and more non-EU migration.

Now if you want to add the promise of less immigration overall to the Leave campaign lies, that would be fair.

 

[hilts]

Be fair. You said he was lying. He said, we "chose non-European migration over European migration". You might want to be picky over cause and effect, but it's undeniable that we voted for Brexit and the outcome is clearly less EU migration and more non-EU migration.

Now if you want to add the promise of less immigration overall to the Leave campaign lies, that would be fair.

No we didn't choose less EU migration end of, there was nothing on the ballot that said by ticking leave you want lower EU immigration and higher non EU immigration. The idea was we had control of who we let in. We didn't choose anything that is a lie.

Bob lives in a world where he thinks business gets what business wants and any shortage of labour must be filled. This is his view it doesn't have to be govt policy.

I repeat the Tory govt and now Labour decide who and who doesn't.come into the country. There is no 'we'.

So.yes he did tell an untruth.

 

[BobKowalski]

We voted to leave the EU and freedom of movement, what and how the new arrangements looked like was up to the govt of the day. We can vote for or against those govts.

Thats it end of, you can try as hard as you like, we can have as little or as many EU immigrants as we like depending on govt and how many want to come.

End of, now in a nice way, bugger off I'm busy:-)

Finally. We got there. It was a long slog, but congrats all round. Yes, we voted to end the legal basis of European migration and replace it with a more restrictive system which then depressed the numbers of European migrants who still retained the choice of 28 other countries to visit/live/work with less hassle and red tape.

And no, we cannot unilaterally decide how many European migrants will come here unless we replaced the old system of freedom of movement with an identical system of freedom of movement, which given we had rejected the old system via a public vote would have been nonsensical and politically impossible. Ending freedom of movement was an expressed aim of Brexit. The Brexit vote was a rejection of close ties with Europe and you cannot divorce that public rejection from the final outcome. Cause and effect. We got what we voted for and it matters not that a majority now regret the outcome.

 

[hilts]

Finally. We got there. It was a long slog, but congrats all round. Yes, we voted to end the legal basis of European migration and replace it with a more restrictive system which then depressed the numbers of European migrants who still retained the choice of 28 other countries to visit/live/work with less hassle and red tape.

And no, we cannot unilaterally decide how many European migrants will come here unless we replaced the old system of freedom of movement with an identical system of freedom of movement, which given we had rejected the old system via a public vote would have been nonsensical and politically impossible. Ending freedom of movement was an expressed aim of Brexit. The Brexit vote was a rejection of close ties with Europe and you cannot divorce that public rejection from the final outcome. Cause and effect. We got what we voted for and it matters not that a majority now regret the outcome.

You're just repeating your untruths, I actually said if they wanted to come, try reading a bit better. if 10 Europeans apply we can choose how many if any we allow in. We ,whoever the fuck you mean by we ,haven't chosen to not let in more, less or the same.. That is the choice of the govt. I'm not going round and round on this thread about it.

Put it in the crymainers thread so all but the Brexit obsessed.dont have to bother with it.

Las time I'm discussing it with you.

 

[Vic]

No we didn't choose less EU migration end of, there was nothing on the ballot that said by ticking leave you want lower EU immigration and higher non EU immigration. The idea was we had control of who we let in. We didn't choose anything that is a lie.

Bob lives in a world where he thinks business gets what business wants and any shortage of labour must be filled. This is his view it doesn't have to be govt policy.

I repeat the Tory govt and now Labour decide who and who doesn't.come into the country. There is no 'we'.

So.yes he did tell an untruth.

"We didn't choose anything" doesn't quite ring true.

We chose to leave the EU, with its ready supply of young workers, most of whom eventually went home to their own country (to be replaced by others doing the same). You might not like the consequences - maybe it wasn't the Brexit you wanted - but you can't pretend it was a consequence-free decision.

Maybe you mocked the Question Time woman who asked who would be serving us our coffee in Pret? Who would be serving us our sandwiches?

Answer: Refugees.

How companies are helping refugees into employment - Raconteur

Three business leaders explain why hiring refugees is good for business and how more companies can help them to find employment

www.raconteur.net

Who'd have thought all these people were coming to work in catering?

 

[hilts]

"We didn't choose anything" doesn't quite ring true.

We chose to leave the EU, with its ready supply of young workers, most of whom eventually went home to their own country (to be replaced by others doing the same). You might not like the consequences - maybe it wasn't the Brexit you wanted - but you can't pretend it was a consequence-free decision.

Maybe you mocked the Question Time woman who asked who would be serving us our coffee in Pret? Who would be serving us our sandwiches?

Answer: Refugees.

How companies are helping refugees into employment - Raconteur

Three business leaders explain why hiring refugees is good for business and how more companies can help them to find employment

www.raconteur.net

Who'd have thought all these people were coming to work in catering?

View attachment 167554

We didn't choose who can and can't come in it was never on the table as a voter, ffs it's not hard. Brexit I want? Haha that is funny. I have no interest where people come from as long as they are genuine. And if im being honest i want less people not more. I don't get my knickers in a twist over GDP and giving business cheap labour.

As I said to business Bob there is a perfectly boring thread you can both cry in, no need to continue it on here. My only surprise is neither of you have blamed the spurs game on brexit yet

I may have missed it though :-)

 

[Hertzblue]

For those not willing to read the entire document I will summarise as follows:

Economic migrants - net positive in fiscal terms.

Refugees/family migrants - net negative in fiscal terms.

They also have those arriving in the country to study as a net negative. Personally, I would dispute that one as in the UK those here to study are shelling out fees for their courses and tend not to stay beyond the duration of their course.

Refugees/asylum seekers will be a negative given the cost to the state in processing their claims, so never likely to recoup that initial outlay. This is self evident.

The greater the disparity of cultural background also correlates to cost. This is interesting as commonwealth immigration blurs that disparity. English is widely spoken and there is a familiarity with British culture or at least an idealised perception of British culture. For arrivals from the Indian subcontinent, Netherlands would be much more alien.

What else? If your parents are low achievers, the likelihood is that your children will be as well. We see that here irrespective of ethnic background, although we are often told that white working class boys are being left behind. Poverty is a drag on mobility and generational achievement is again self evident.

In short, the report concludes that the best immigrants are European and Protestant ie as similar as possible to the native population. We should join the EU and take advantage of that. What do you think? :)

Seems you might have learned something - all Migration isn't good.

 

[Hertzblue]

How do you know? Have you never used the services your taxes go towards?

Schools, child benefit, libraries, roads, any of the emergency services, the NHS, state pension......

I genuinely don't know what the break even point is. I was in hospital earlier in the year and I reckon my 2 week stay with procedures cost the NHS around £35000, more than I will pay in income tax this year. The "profit" very quickly runs out.

I am very confident.

 

[Hertzblue]

My first reaction isn't to claim they've got it wrong.

I understand how these calculations are made. I don't think you're likely to have been a cost to society - but I don't think most people are either. However, under a pure calculation of the tax we personally pay, minus schooling, healthcare, benefits etc., the majority end up being classed that way. You could live your whole life on above average wages, and never claim benefits till you retire. and still show up as a "net cost" on that graph. That's the bit that's nonsense.

Your own graph also showed that the average migrant, appeared to be better for the economy than the average UK citizen. Does that not suggest that it might not be quite as clear cut as you believe?

The graph doesn't show an average migrant or an average UK citizen. It shows a migrant on an average wage and a representative UK citizen ( tbh I am not clear why that term is used , I suspect it is around average but if so why use the term representative) . The biggest difference appears as you said in an earlier post that the migrant has no education costs and starts at age 24, the UK citizen carries the negative charge for education etc.

 

[Hertzblue]

Yes. For example we chose non-European migration over European migration and to isolate ourselves from European agreements on refugees. These were conscious democratic choices made by the people and our elected representatives.

Such has been the success of our choices we are have arrived at the ‘how about we give the State the right to torture people and round people up and deport them’ stage of the conversation.

I think we can all agree our choices in recent years have been less than optimal.

FFs , Farage has really spun your head ....

we are have arrived at the ‘how about we give the State the right to torture people

Get a grip lol.

 

[Vic]

FFs , Farage has really spun your head ....

Get a grip lol.

He would abolish the law that says the state cannot torture people. The default position then would be that the state could torture people.

Why isn't your head spinning?

 

[Hertzblue]

Oh no , don’t say we are going back to the days when I had to worry about being tortured! Which were ….. when were they ?

 

[bluenova]

The graph doesn't show an average migrant or an average UK citizen. It shows a migrant on an average wage and a representative UK citizen ( tbh I am not clear why that term is used , I suspect it is around average but if so why use the term representative) . The biggest difference appears as you said in an earlier post that the migrant has no education costs and starts at age 24, the UK citizen carries the negative charge for education etc.

I'm sure a statistician will know the answer :)

My comments on the bluemooners being "net costs" isn't based on this graph. If you look up things like "break even" on taxes, then it's often something like two-thirds of the country being a "net cost". Given a good chunk of us will be in Greater Manchester, that means we're even more likely to be in that "net cost" pot, draining society, while out betters support us with their wealth.

I am sure that there are ways that varying levels of migration does have a negative or positive impact, I just don't agree these stats tell the whole story. These kind of calculations always undervalue most of the population, and that applies just as much to migrants.

 

[Vic]

Oh no , don’t say we are going back to the days when I had to worry about being tortured! Which were ….. when were they ?

Me, me, me.

It's to stop people who escaped being tortured being sent back to their torturers.

I guess that doesn't bother you.

 

[BobKowalski]

Seems you might have learned something - all Migration isn't good.

Providing safe harbour for refugees isn’t a fiscal calculation. It’s a humanitarian decision and one I have no problem with.

 

[BobKowalski]

FFs , Farage has really spun your head ....

Get a grip lol.

Yet again, you provide no counter arguments. I encourage you to do better.

 

[BobKowalski]

We didn't choose who can and can't come in it was never on the table as a voter, ffs it's not hard. Brexit I want? Haha that is funny. I have no interest where people come from as long as they are genuine. And if im being honest i want less people not more. I don't get my knickers in a twist over GDP and giving business cheap labour.

As I said to business Bob there is a perfectly boring thread you can both cry in, no need to continue it on here. My only surprise is neither of you have blamed the spurs game on brexit yet

I may have missed it though :-)

Your knickers need to be in a twist. And I’m still waiting for to back up your assertion that our aging demographic profile and low birthrate are not a problem. To get more births we need more people not less.

Fertility rates continue to fall, but number of births rise

Fertility rates are falling in Great Britain, as in many parts of the world. The number of babies continues to rise, however, thanks to population increase.

news.sky.com

 

[mancityvstoke]

This thread and virtually all the other politics threads show what an absolute number Farage has done on the people of the UK.

Does anyone fancy discussing what the government are or aren't doing in relation to our absolutely crappy productivity? Could we fix our lamentable investment record on that front by designing wealth taxes that offered heavily incentives to those who invest long term in specifc sectors? What are the areas that some targeted spending would improve NHS productivity?

Nah, cause fucking dinghies eh.

50 years of both left and right Govts mismanagement of the UK = our downward spiral to what we have now.

Reform won't fix that epic fail and are just Trump buddies. It's all too late to stop it and we are skint apparently.

Well some of us are anyway, not the politicians or corporate business men/women/persons.

 

[BrianW]

When calculating 'net cost', does it take into account the people working for Tesco et al, who contribute to corporate profits but are on such shit pay that the state has to subsidise their wages by way of benefits - e.g. Universal Credit, Housing Benefit? After all, without the contribution of such people, the corporates would not make as much profit, and thus would have to reduce their dividends and/or reduce the fat salaries of directors and executives.

 

[hilts]

Your knickers need to be in a twist. And I’m still waiting for to back up your assertion that our aging demographic profile and low birthrate are not a problem. To get more births we need more people not less.

Fertility rates continue to fall, but number of births rise

Fertility rates are falling in Great Britain, as in many parts of the world. The number of babies continues to rise, however, thanks to population increase.

news.sky.com

When did I say it wasn't a problem? I said I find your solution of just carrying on as we are unacceptably damaging. I can't keep having discussions with someone who can't grasp the basics of a two way conversation.