Ukip. All discussion here please.

[retep 68]

Whilst I've always belonged to the school of thought that thinks it rude to answer a question by asking a question...

 

...why do you insist on missing the point?

 

It has nothing to do with the number of immigrants!

 

Missing no point, people cause overcrowding not the pound in their pockets.

 

And it's according to you it's rude to answer a question with a question perhaps you should change your school.

[L00b 441]

Whilst you are right, the two way nature of this immigration system actually exacerbates the situation, as there is now two volatile variables impacting population change.

I do not believe that it does exacerbate the situation at all, I believe it works exactly how it was designed to work: EU people move intra-EU to where the work is.

 

The 'downside' is the flipside: in economic terms (and social terms too, even if from the tax contributions alone) EU economic migrants benefit essentially the country they flock to and work in, not so much theirs and which has to do without (brain drain syndrome). In that respect, they contribute to make that country's economy better than their own (and those of other Member States in a similar quandary).

 

The difficulty is in balancing the issue, so that the phenomenon does not reach the condition of a vicious circle, i.e. wherein the countries haemorrhaging workers to the 'competition' end up in terminal socio-economic decline and ever more of a drain on the other Members.

 

In a knowledge economy like that of the EU's (mostly, and only ever increasingly), to my mind the solution should come from infrastructure and education, so that -long term- moving to the UK, or Germany or <wherever> for work makes little to no economical sense to prospective migrants (or at any rate, significantly less economical sense than right now).

 

And that last point draws me to fact that, in all of these debates, the one elephant in the room which everyone seems to have taken their eye of, is the economical context, namely the aftermath of the worst global economical crisis since 1929. Mass EU immigration, championed by Labour or not, would never have reached the levels of the past few years, if there hadn't been a global crisis in 2008 AND the UK hadn't weathered it faster and better than most (even if only in marketing terms ). Success sells and when the domestic unemployment rate for youth is well north of 20% (Spain, France), is it any surprise the go-getters come over here and to Germany with knives between their teeth?

Perhaps residency in other EU countries should only be granted when an individual has a job within x months of arriving?

But then, what of non-working residents, e.g. the innumerable retired Brits living in Spain? What of non-working dependents, e.g. EU but non-national and non-working spouses and kids?

On the subject of non-EU migration, this should be managed. As I have said, Britain has done very well historically from migration, but by managing the influx of assets, we can do even better!

Britain is barely letting anyone non-EU in any more. That's been happening awhile, and is from the coalface. Edited December 12, 2014 by L00b

[Lotusflower 10]

Missing no point, people cause overcrowding not the pound in their pockets.

 

And it's according to you it's rude to answer a question with a question perhaps you should change your school.

 

I wonder if you've ever considered the possibility that it is ok to see a belt without feeling the urge to hit below it.

We don't have to agree you know, but it should be in most men's power to be civil during a discussion.

 

We are not overcrowded. That is a myth put out by a right wing ex banker for gullible fear stricken people to believe in. His branch of politics always needs a scapegoat. If none exist they will invent one.

History is littered with people like Mr Farage.

[retep 68]

I wonder if you've ever considered the possibility that it is ok to see a belt without feeling the urge to hit below it.

We don't have to agree you know, but it should be in most men's power to be civil during a discussion.

 

We are not overcrowded. That is a myth put out by a right wing ex banker for gullible fear stricken people to believe in. His branch of politics always needs a scapegoat. If none exist they will invent one.

History is littered with people like Mr Farage.

 

Tell that to the homeless.

[charmer 10]

Sorry, don't know how to multi quote the same person like you do, so this may be messy!

 

I do not believe that it does exacerbate the situation at all, I believe it works exactly how it was designed to work: EU people move intra-EU to where the work is.

 

 

But the movement isn't equal and is therefore hard to quantify, and therefore plan in advance.

 

 

The 'downside' is the flipside: in economic terms (and social terms too, even if from the tax contributions alone) EU economic migrants benefit essentially the country they flock to and work in, not so much theirs and which has to do without (brain drain syndrome). In that respect, they contribute to make that country's economy better than their own (and those of other Member States in a similar quandary).

 

The difficulty is in balancing the issue, so that the phenomenon does not reach the condition of a vicious circle, i.e. wherein the countries haemorrhaging workers to the 'competition' end up in terminal socio-economic decline and ever more of a drain on the other Members.

 

 

This is one of the best aspects of the EU for our nation. We benefit massively from the skills and hardwork of other countries, so does your homeland (you are french right?). We are a winner from the EU and wherever you find winners, you find losers.

 

 

In a knowledge economy like that of the EU's (mostly, and only ever increasingly), to my mind the solution should come from infrastructure and education, so that -long term- moving to the UK, or Germany or <wherever> for work makes little to no economical sense to prospective migrants (or at any rate, significantly less than right now).

 

 

I assume you mean remote working? We are still a long way of this becoming the norm, especially as a disproportionate number of immigrants work in the service and manufacturing sectors.

 

 

In all of these debates, the one elephant in the room which everyone seems to have taken their eye of, is the economical context, namely the aftermath of the worst global economical crisis since 1929. Mass EU immigration, championed by Labour or not, would never have reached the levels of the past few years, if there hadn't been a global crisis in 2008 AND the UK hadn't weathered it faster and better than most (even if only in marketing terms ). Success sells and when the domestic unemployment rate for youth is well north of 20% (Spain, France), is it any surprise the go-getters come over here and to Germany with knives between their teeth?

 

 

Absolutely agree

 

 

In that context, those who refer to "Auf Wiedersen Pet" should do well to realise the irony of their example.

 

 

But then, what of non-working residents, e.g. the innumerable retired Brits living in Spain? What of non-working dependents, e.g. EU but non-national and non-working spouses and kids?

Britain is barely letting anyone non-EU in any more. That's been happening awhile, and is from the coalface.

 

 

Perhaps something like the Australian system in which one must have sufficient funds to ones disposal to enable self-sufficiency.

 

With regards to non EU immigration, I disagree though the analysis of numbers (ie how many is too many) is of course subjective. See this from the ONS (office of national statistics, i think yours is called INSEE??)

 

"The statistically significant increase of 30,000 in immigration of non-EU citizens to 272,000 was in part driven by an increase in immigration to accompany/join others up 19,000 to 54,000. This follows a steady decline in non-EU immigration since the recent peak of 334,000 in the year ending September 2011".

 

To put that into perspective that is enough non EU migrants to fill a city the size of Dijon every year! I subjectively degree that this is not "barely letting anyone in".

 

The topic of immigration is a serious one (though not as serious as the media are portraying) and needs to be discussed. However, many things are more important to me than my countries immigration policy, such as it's foreign policy, education policy and health policy.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Tell that to the homeless.

 

You believe that people are homeless because we don't have enough houses? I'd bet there are more empty homes then homeless people here in the UK.

[retep 68]

You believe that people are homeless because we don't have enough houses? I'd bet there are more empty homes then homeless people here in the UK.

 

I'm sure that will be of great comfort to them.

[L00b 441]

I do not believe that it does exacerbate the situation at all, I believe it works exactly how it was designed to work: EU people move intra-EU to where the work is.

But the movement isn't equal and is therefore hard to quantify, and therefore plan in advance.

It has never been equal, going back years and years before the accession States were even being considered for admission into the EU.

 

I agree that the volume of the recent years is likely to have caused some issues, perhaps enough to justify some shifting in national resources allocation and management (particularly when these have shrunk, necessarily, due to budgetary losses), but is there really a need to plan domestically beyond the medium term (being generous here), when this "immigration flash fire" may die off as more and more of the EU emerges from the economic doldrums?

 

Seems to me that, to stem economic migration, the UK could do worse than help EU Member States get their economies ship-shape (to help them retain their workers), rather than pull up the curtains...It might even get itself some new customers in the process

In a knowledge economy like that of the EU's (mostly, and only ever increasingly), to my mind the solution should come from infrastructure and education, so that -long term- moving to the UK, or Germany or <wherever> for work makes little to no economical sense to prospective migrants (or at any rate, significantly less than right now).

I assume you mean remote working? We are still a long way of this becoming the norm, especially as a disproportionate number of immigrants work in the service and manufacturing sectors.

Not necessarily, but that is one example.

 

I'm thinking, in more general terms, along the lines of e.g. Slovakia slowly but surely becoming the car manufacturing capital of Europe for non-EU manufacturers (like e.g. Hyundai and Kia) when, historically, that would have gone to the UK or perhaps the club meds (Spain, Greece): the Slovakian gvt focused investment of EU funding into infrastructure (enabling logistic flows required for car making) and education (providing a sufficiently-skilled workforce), and made that possible.

 

The same dynamic can be applied to most EU Member States, if they can combine smart investment and national policies, into a synergistic effect (...that has long been the EU's core aim). Again, perhaps the UK can help them/has some lessons to give in that context.

But then, what of non-working residents, e.g. the innumerable retired Brits living in Spain? What of non-working dependents, e.g. EU but non-national and non-working spouses and kids?

Perhaps something like the Australian system in which one must have sufficient funds to ones disposal to enable self-sufficiency.

That's not free movement à la EU anymore, in fact it would be no different to the current non-EU immigrant model.

Britain is barely letting anyone non-EU in any more. That's been happening awhile, and is from the coalface.

With regards to non EU immigration, I disagree though the analysis of numbers (ie how many is too many) is of course subjective. <...>

I agree that numbers are inherently irrefutable...but I'm quite familiar enough with Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, Section EC-P (Entry clearance as a partner) and how the Gvt currently applies them, thanks

 

My (local) Yorkshire born and bred sister in law, whom I have been helping in the matter, is still trying to get her US husband of 2 years (together 5 years) to get in on something other than a tourist visa.

 

Ironically enough, when the NHS and its immigrants are brought into the debate...she is a British-trained NHS hospital nurse.

The topic of immigration is a serious one (though not as serious as the media are portraying) and needs to be discussed. However, many things are more important to me than my countries immigration policy, such as it's foreign policy, education policy and health policy.[/b]

My turn to agree Edited December 12, 2014 by L00b

[Xt500 10]

It doesn't matter what policy's you have on them services if demand exceeds capability.

There's 2 ways of dealing with that,cut down the demand,or reduce what you give.

People seem to be happy to keep demand growing and keep cutting what's available.

That's great until a service you need is cut.

Simple maths really init .

[anfisa 10]

If you have a room that contains everything that two people need to live and you invite a third person in you will have to make some sacrifices because sharing what two people need between three people will leave you with less. If you leave the door open and more people enter the room you will start to feel that your living standards are starting to decline, keep the door open so that anyone can just enter at will and the people in the room will start to think its getting a little overcrowded.

 

Do you blame the people entering the room last? No

Do you blame someone for not increasing the size of the room? No

Do you blame the idiot that left the door open? Yes because the problems of overcrowding, lack of food, the long wait to use the loo were all caused because some idiot left the door open and let more people in than the room could sustain.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

It doesn't matter what policy's you have on them services if demand exceeds capability.

There's 2 ways of dealing with that,cut down the demand,or reduce what you give.

People seem to be happy to keep demand growing and keep cutting what's available.

That's great until a service you need is cut.

Simple maths really init .

 

Very simple - Oh hang on a second, there is another option. Increase capacity!

[chalga 10]

Has there been an influx of bankers in A&E, schools, housing, benefits?

 

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/greg-dropkin-karen-reissman/healthcare-in-britain-first-they-came-for-immigrants

 

No,there's been cuts to services:

 

 

 

When the NHS was created on 5th July 1948, one of its founding principles was universal health care. This meant that everyone in Britain had the same access to the health service. Nye Bevan explicitly refuted the argument that foreign visitors should not benefit from the health service funded by UK taxation.

 

Bevan wrote “How do we distinguish a visitor from anybody else? Are British citizens to carry means of identification everywhere to prove that they are not visitors? What began as an attempt to keep the Health Service for ourselves would end by being a nuisance to everybody. The whole agitation has a nasty taste. Instead of rejoicing at the opportunity to practice a civilized principle, Conservatives have tried to exploit the most disreputable emotions in this among many other attempts to discredit socialized medicine.“

 

 

 

The Conservative-LibDem Coalition’s proposal to charge non-EU migrants for NHS care is a cynical attempt to divert people’s attention from the real source of the problems affecting the health service. It is also the thin end of a thick wedge.

 

Across the country A&E units are under intolerable pressures due to real terms spending cuts despite the supposed ring-fencing of health spending. The ’111’ service that was supposed to replace NHS Direct is in virtual meltdown. Waiting lists grow. Thousands of staff - clinicians as well as supposed ’pen pushers’ - face redundancy in Trusts across Britain. Wards and even whole hospitals are closing.

 

The NHS crisis does not stem from migrants abusing the system. Estimates of the supposed costs of so-called ’health tourism’ vary dramatically from under £35m to more than £200m. These sums might sound substantial, but even the higher figure accounts for less than 0. 17% of the overall NHS budget. Compare this with the £20bn the Tory-led government is slashing from the NHS through ’efficiency savings’, nearly 20% of the total. In proportional terms this is the biggest cut in health spending of any country including beleaguered Greece. Then look at the £3bn price tag for implementing the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which was never in a party manifesto and is a thinly disguised charter for privatisation.

Edited December 12, 2014 by chalga