That is the most ridiculous thing to come out yet. Still I suppose it might appeal to those unable to "think about it". Anyway far too late, our postal votes have already been cast along with just about every ex-pat I know.
I am truly amazed about the use of the expression 'uncontrolled immigration'. 630,000 people migrated to the UK. last year and 297,000 left - giving a net inflow of 333,000. Of the people coming to the UK. 83,000 were returning Britons and 277,000 from non EU. countries. This leaves 270,000 from other EU. countries - 85,000 EU. citizens left over that period, meaning that Britain gained 185,000 Europeans. Compare this to tourism - London had 17.4 million visitors last year - who spent 11.8 billion pounds into the economy of London alone. From these 17.4 million 7 of the 8 top sending countries were in the EU. (2 million visitors from France alone). We can safely say that for every one European who comes to Britain with the intention of staying there are 50+ others who come, spend their money, and then go. How many others come to do language courses and bring their money into coastal towns like Brighton, Bournemouth etc. ? Are the Brexiters going to try to bring in a Visa requirement for all of these people ? London's tourist industry is reliant on EU. membership for its life blood. I have not heard any real cohesive plan as to how the Brexiters propose to control immigration up to now, all I hear is populist mumbling.
Nice twisting of the facts again Cologne. Immigration means people who intend to stay and live in that country, so any comparison to tourism is meaningless. Not sure if you are aware, but people travelled as tourists many years before the Lisbon Treaty - and in Europe without visa's! Non-EU students require Visa's today.... Controlling immigration means controlling who intends to move to a country with the intent to stay, live, work and consume the resources of that country. So if I wish to travel to the US for pleasure, I just complete an online form and pay $14 for a ESTA which lasts 2 years and can travel there for pleasure for up to 90 days at a time - but if I wanted to work in the US and live there, I would have to apply for a green-card. Australia uses a similar approach but the assessment of eligibility of working is points based, which is based on the needs of Australia - so I can get a tourist visa fairly easily but would need enough points to travel there to live and work. It is really not very complex. So if there is a Brexit, students and those wishing to come to the UK to live and study/work will need a visa to do so. In essence EU citizens will be treated the same as non-EU citizens - so if Costs/Subway/Domino/Amazon/Sports Direct wish to employ low skilled Serbians, they will have to demonstrate that they cannot do this with people already enabled to work in this country that are not working. Hopefully this will push up the wages of the low paid in this country.
This sounds like a real cohesive plan as to how us Brexiters propose to control immigration, I cannot hear any mumbling whatsoever.
There are already 800,000 jobs available that have not been filled, so of course people are needed who are willing to take them on. There are lots of seasonal jobs that Brits have turned their backs on, yet it cannot be just low wages as credits can make them up. On average every worker from the EU in the UK pays £1.70 in taxes for every £1.00 they take out, so they are adding to the resources of the country. Something like 45% of people from the EU going into the UK labour market are graduates with jobs that they applied for and won, not looking for low paid employment, so the idea that they looking for any job going is not correct. The majority of immigration into the UK is from non EU countries that the government has full control over already. Many of those are people coming for essential jobs in the NHS or similar as you need skills that the UK does not train enough people for. Much of the best research carried out in the UK is paid for and employs EU nationals which the institutions such as universities wish to continue. Because of this success the UK receives the largest sums of money from the research funds of any member country, which would dry up if the country left. This is not an EU problem as facts show, but one that those who wish to leave are happy to muddy the waters with.
The UK should be in a position to decide on the quantity and the quality of immigrants applying to enter the UK. There are huge problems in certain areas of the UK due to overwhelming numbers of immigrants. Whilst the UK has no control over numbers it cannot adequately plan public services to meet demand. Don't forget even if immigrants currently pay more than they get out all these people will become dependants on the state later in life. Any money from EU research funds is only some of our own contributions being returned.
The majority of immigrants are young and are helping to pay my and many others pensions. In a study out today it shows that the population of the UK would age if immigration levels were cut. This would throw an even larger burden on those in work. The options outlined would be cuts for the lower paid to reduce the welfare budget, or increase taxation on companies and individuals. For whatever reason France has a high tax rate on companies, which I think we can agree on has not helped the economy. The UK does have the right in the majority of cases who it chooses to have in the country, but needs people to come in as the current population does not provide enough income for the government to spend on things like the NHS. Gove has suggested he wants to see a NHS which is run along the lines of the American model. One way I suppose to cut the demands on the public purse.
What us brexiters require is the UK to determine who choses to relocate to the UK, at present that is not possible. Gove is one of the braver politicians who is prepared to admit that the NHS and the care for the elderly cannot continue to be financed as present. I would like to see more private services involved as in France.
So who will do the choosing? Will you have a say? I doubt it, then you will be saying, but I didn't want him living next door to me. So why don't the Brexit lot come out with it that they would be happy for the NHS to no longer be free at the point of access? Because they know it would go down like a lead balloon. The chairman of the Health Committee today said she could no longer go along with the deceit of the exit campaign and would now be changing to support the stay group. A doctor and someone with an understanding of the NHS to change in such a way is very damming of the type of mis-information being given out.
Brexit and the financing of the NHS are two completely separate subjects. It is desperate of you to try to link them. The MP in question has spent the last few months damning the dishonesty of the remain campaign, Andrew Neill made her look quite ridicules this lunchtime on tv. She will undoubtedly join the cabinet after the next reshuffle. Meanwhile the chairman of JCB, one of Cameron's heroes, has told his 6,000 staff that the UK could 'stand on its own two feet' and he will be voting for brexit.
Hang on, haven't you noticed that your buddies have been going around saying how much more money they would have to spend on the NHS. Hardly desperate of me to raise the issue when they tried unsuccessfully to lead people up the garden path. Anyone with a bit of common sense could see that they used the ploy, but someone on their side yesterday said they were lying. Please e-mail the Brexit machine to tell them that the two issues are unrelated.
No, because if you wish to have access to the free market in any meaningful way, you will still have to accept free movement of people.
