And as we've seen with boats coming from France, Belgium and Holland, we'd physically have to move the UK further out into the Atlantic to make any difference to that, in or out of the EU.
I'm sure my daughter and other NHS staff are made up that Boris and IDS are going to be spending £350m a week more on them when we leave the EU. I have my doubts, but PPB's never lie. Wonder how much the skin bleaching of doctors and nurses is going to take out of that too. And we're probably having to foot un-dancing lessons to knock any rhythm out f them too. There's a job for me in my retirement.
when poor peopel take to boats from cub to US (90miles) or get put in anything and pushed out in to the med but scum in north africa for the italian nay to maybe pick up (or not) the uk could be 500miles out in the atlantic and desperate people would try.
Just thought I'd point out that control of our borders in regards to numbers of economic migrants is nothing to do with illegal immigrants taking to boats to try and gain entry into the country.
thats is fair. the reality is the fear is about the illegals in trucks and boat but the really its guys from all over the world coming in due to empire times... not just eu migrants.. but there are prob loads of eu migrants. economic migrants should be paying taxes but in reality theres huge exploitation out there.
This Brexit speech by Rt Hon Winston Peters New Zealand First Leader Member of Parliament for Northland 13 MAY 2016 It's calm tone and style whether you agree with it's content or not puts both camps leaders to shame in their hysterical lies and soundbites... Brexit To leave or to stay in the EU is for the British people to decide. In what appears as a raging internal debate, there nevertheless is a vast audience of outsiders who are carefully watching, assessing the arguments for and against and contemplating what it could all mean. This is an outsider’s view of some of the pros and cons, and what opportunities may really avail. To begin with we on the outside have always known, that since joining the EU there has been a strong “Eurosceptic” movement just below the surface of British politics. Apart from grievances with unwieldy EU bureaucracy and loss of sovereignty, much of the anti-EU sentiment stems from concern with immigration. The UK in the EU, is an open door, a wealthy country and a magnet for people from EU countries like Poland and Romania that enjoy open access, work and welfare benefits. There has been a growing element in the “EU Process” that does not make any sense, of a bureaucratic disconnect with ordinary people, whatever their nation might be. Laws banning abnormal curvature in cucumbers and bananas, banning children under 8 from blowing up balloons, and making it a crime to eat your own pet horse, but not that of your neighbour, to banning prunes from being advertised as a laxative. Anyone who has over eaten enough prunes knows just how risible and distressing that is. In short, ridiculous laws, drafted by high paid minds, that seem deliberately obtuse. And on the question of migration many observers have watcher in apprehension and dismay at the invasion of sovereign countries and their seeming inability to do anything about it. Accordingly, the migrant crisis is ongoing and on which EU leadership appears dysfunctional and indecisive. Perhaps most alarming in the current debate, to Brexit or not, are some extraordinary claims. For example, yesterday, it was alleged that Britain leaving the EU would cost every person in the UK between 500 and 2,000 pounds a year- by 2030. Now there are some quite unusual features connected with such a claim. First, 2030 is 14 years away. Second, 500 pounds is 75% lower than 2000 pounds. The difference suggests that whoever did these calculations is looser than the proverbial goose. Yesterday the UK trade deficit figures with the EU came out at a record high, all of which means debt to the UK voter. Ladies and gentlemen, ironic indeed is the 2000 pound per annum loss claimed to each citizen as an example. It raises the suspicion that the 11th hour discovery of the real economic interests of the ordinary Briton has occurred in somewhat the same way as Christopher Columbus discovered America- purely by accident. The analogy doesn’t stop there, because as you will recall Columbus was advised not to go because, his boat would drop off the end of the world; similar to the current “remain” threat of world war three. But back to the 2000 pounds, if you look carefully at EU GDP growth rates, or rather the lack of them, 2000 pounds is about what the ordinary Briton has already lost in real terms, in a little over a decade. The EU is Britain’s largest trading partner and some opine Brexit would adversely impact jobs and growth, that Brexit would be a legal minefield, and could take years with uncertainty impacting business investment. If you ask the average Briton today about the impact of two million EU workers in Briton, they will confirm that already has had an impact, an adverse one on their economic and social opportunities. They certainly know that economic growth has been stunted. And anyone who thinks that EU processes are plain sailing simply has never engaged with them. Some might conceive of an EU, sans UK retaliating against the second largest economy in Europe. A glance at the EU GDP growth figures in recent years suggests that option is not available to the EU. The French and German people are having elections next year, after which time it is reputed they are going to come forward with a plan for the future of the Eurozone. That says much of what they think of the present plan. Neither low GDP growth or EU stagnation appear to support the scaremongers. To those who say the effect on London as a financial centre would be critical. There is an obvious response. London has been a global financial centre for centuries and way beyond the EU. Banking, as London knows best, is global and dependent upon real expertise. However, the most critical element, much overlooked in this debate is the economic and social advances that only real freedom can germinate and cause to flourish. The benefit of real freedom is economic development born of fair competition, that allows innovation to emerge and prosper. It nurtures and encourages it. And in many ways the EU environment has stultified real competition. Recent GDP growth rates attest to that. “Breaking up is always hard to do”, or so goes the song. But the leave side see a massive opportunity, which many outside observers see as well. The question that many are asking is, “if not the EU then what?” The largest part of the answer to that question is staring them in the face. It’s based in history. It arises from both trade and empire and it is a Commonwealth of enormous growth. With much of that growth coming after the UK left our special relationship. The Commonwealth the UK will find in 2016 is quite different to the one it turned its back on in 1973. Infrastructure has come on in leaps and bounds. The days of the Commonwealth having nothing but raw commodities are gone. It is now a dynamic powerhouse, crossing every time zone and trading session in the world. It covers nearly 30 million square kilometres, almost a quarter of the World’s land area. It’s members can be found in every single inhabited continent. Together, we have a population of over 2.3 billion, nearly a third of the world’s population. In 2014 the Commonwealth produced GDP of $10.45 trillion, a massive 17% of gross world product. Seen that way the Commonwealth could be a colossus. It has a diversity of markets the EU can only dream of, from first world economies to emerging markets with huge growth potential. Part of the choice the UK faces is of a Europe, divided and indebted, or trade in the developed and emerging economies of The Commonwealth. By 2050 the population of The Commonwealth will have increased by 30%, whilst the EU will have dropped by 2%. GDP growth in the Eurozone has amounted to just 0.7% in recent years, Commonwealth GDP grew by 5%. Eighteen of the Commonwealth’s 53 countries are in Africa, the only continent which during the Global Financial Crisis did not have a single quarter of negative growth. Unlike the EU which took a collective plunge into the freezing waters of the GFC, the Commonwealth with its geographical and economic diversity is a strength, not a weakness and with diversity, both economic and cultural, it mirrors the global economy which the EU does not. At a time of increasing world tension and polarisation, with talk of a new cold war, the opportunity to foster better trading relations with, for example, India and South Africa, is massive. Why trade on a continental scale, when you could really trade on a global scale? The reaction of some on the “remain side” put one in mind of the famous words of Marilyn Rice-Davies in one of the most memorable quotes in British Politics, “He would say that wouldn’t he?” First, that any of the 53 Commonwealth Nations has the power of veto, as though the UN security council does not. Second, that it is dysfunctional, as though the EU are sitting around the campfire singing kumbaya on migration. Third, that many of its members are economic cot cases, as though Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain are economic powerhouses. Four, that distance is in effect a non-tariff barrier, as if the East India Trading company never left port or that transport costs or not being massively reduced. And, Fifth, as though the Geographic Concern is not being met by high end, added value products being moved by sea and air. The UK returning to the Commonwealth, and the creation of a Commonwealth Free Trade Area would heal a rift dating back 43 years. It will not be easy, it will not be simple and it will not happen overnight. It will take great courage and statesmanship but in what appears to be a sea of EU atrophy, Britain taking a bold and courageous step back to The Commonwealth with a fresh approach is something that The Commonwealth would respond positively to. It would signal the dawn of a new age of Commonwealth economic advancement. And to those who point to elements of corruption in the Commonwealth; that is a problem most Commonwealth countries acknowledge and detest in the same way we abhorred the background to the Wall Street generated global financial crisis of 2007, or the Big Short, which hitherto respected finance houses engaged in to rapidly spread it’s cancerous effects. The gesture alone of the UK, coming back would be more significant to the Commonwealth than many in the UK realise. The young countries of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, among others, answered the “Home Country” call in not just one, but two world wars. The names of Passchendaele, the Somme and El Alamein have been branded into the New Zealand consciousness just as much as the British. Reminders are found in all of our small towns of our sacrifice in defence of the Empire. At the height of WW2 New Zealand had over 150,000 men under arms, truly remarkable for a country of just 1.6 million at the time. While Britain lost 5123 men per million of population, New Zealand lost 6684. Strong were our feelings when the UK turned toward the EU and away from the Commonwealth throwing the economies of our countries which had sacrificed so much into shock, all while the sacrifices made for the Empire were still in living memory. But that’s in the past and many outsiders are telling the British that they must remain. New Zealand’s Prime Minister has. So did former Canadian Prime Minister Harper, and President Obama. None of those leaders asked their people, or your people, first. This is a decision that the people that once made Britain great, alone must make. You live in the United Kingdom, you pay taxes to Brussels, and you are subject to European Union control. Anyone who thinks that the economy of the nation that once created the largest empire in history will be suddenly laid to ruin upon leaving the EU is greatly mistaken, or having left will be friendless, doesn’t understand history or realise when push comes to shove how deep Commonwealth bonds are. The British people stand on the cusp of an exciting future. It will not be easy to achieve that future. But if there is one nation that can do it, it is the British. One caution. If a majority of British people are swayed by the undue influence of outside money, of foreign interests openly contaminating your nations referendum, then that would be a British people that frankly the commonwealth really wouldn’t want. But if to be British in 2016, on 23 June, is to have stoically confronted and defeated a disgraceful trespass and attempted perversion of your democracy, then that would be the British The Commonwealth would welcome back with open arms. The world is a far bigger place than the 28 EU member states. Britain forgot that once, at its present cost. Some of us believe that you won’t make that mistake again. After all it was a Briton who centuries ago wrote this call to action: “There comes a tide in the affairs of men, which if taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.”
He knew I meant that. I made the point yesterday and I'll make the point again today, whether we're in or out of the EU, how do we stop people-smuggling from the north coast of mainland Europe? In fact, if we pull out of the EU the French are perfectly entitled to let them all board Eurostar and get sorted out in Kent.
You had quoted a post which wasn't talking about illegal immigration but rather regular economic migrants and bolded it which would suggest you thought your point was relevant to that one. I was just pointing out that they are two different discussions. Illegal immigration and legal immigration are managed in different ways completely and effect the country in different ways too. RE the French being entitled to just let them all onto the Eurostar, that would seem like nonsense to me. It serves no-ones interests to not continue to have a strong border and work together to police it. Why do people assume being outside the EU amounts to no longer working in a civil way with EU countries? It's like the idea that we won't continue to work with security agencies across Europe for the purpose of counter-terrorism, it's nonsense. Also as you've said yourself, in or out of the EU the issue still remains so it's not all that relevant to a discussion about in or out of the EU.
Imo economic in a proper system increases the wealth of a nation. It's the here I am I've no skills give me dole types that are used as the excuse. Not the 1000s who come and pay taxes here and do a job.
Immigrants who end up on benefits, low skilled immigrants working for low wages driving down wages and immigrants who work in certain industries in large numbers or large numbers moving to geographic areas with infrastructure that cannot cope with the influx are some of the economic issues which can arise through mis-managed legal immigration. Several of these issues can arise simultaneously to the migrants themselves having a positive economic effect in ways such as paying tax. Like all things there are both pros and cons. In general both economically and socially I think immigration is a positive thing, but should be managed properly to maximise the benefits and minimise the negatives. Which is what I think you were getting at with the "in a proper system". It is creating the proper system which seems to be the issue!
I think it's fairly obvious we're becoming overcrowded, I saw people falling off Land's End the other day. ****'s getting real And what about the hospitals. I was off my tits on a wild concoction of alcohol and the greens on Saturday night, and by a stroke of misfortune found myself bellyflopping unceremoniously from a lamppost into the path of a passing car. Imagine my disgust in the A&E department when I actually had to wait behind a queue of foreigners with their serious fcking problems! It's people like that which make our NHS struuggle under the pressure! ****'s getting real
Look how long it took for Switzerland to negotiate their current treaties with the European Union despite being no better off than other countries.
This to me is one where a "remain" govt needs to fess up be it Labour of at the minute a slight majority of Tories including a majority of the current cabinet. If there has been an influx of migrants of any kind...economic; legally coming for work or refugees. The govt needs to identify the increase in population and provide extra resources for services to support that community...because they having come to work and pay tax have already paid for them. If there is a shortage of schools housing etc in an area that is a govt fault. I'll repeat my analogy of a previous post...If 100000 people from the North of England moved down south to work we would not be talking about building a wall just outside London to stop them. We'd say "the internal population has moved so resources must follow." This is no different. We are currently saying x amount of jobs need filled and for one reason or another the indigenous people have not taken them up. If a Polish worker comes in, accepts minimum wage..they are still paying tax, they are still renting accommodation, they are still paying for services and goods and should have sufficient access to social services just like their indigenous neighbours. I think it's misdirection to call it a immigration problem...it's a resource allocation problem. It's the Govt not only saying to the local people we will take your tax but give you **** all for it but to the hard migrant workers too! As for taking jobs...My small town saw over the last ten years a big influx from Eastern Europe? Why? Because the local population didn't want to work in the local poultry businesses for **** wages or good wages...it's unpleasant dirty work...guess who doesn't mind doing that work since it pays more than back home? The wages weren't kept low by immigrants they were kept low by locals leaving instead of organising through unions to fight management.
Also worth noting that, aside from the Poland boom in 2005-2009, the countries supplying the most immigrants are outside the EU. The Guardian link supplied by BobbyD also said the immigration from non-EU countries was (slightly) higher than immigration from EU countries.
Nah, the third Rodgers year was pretty rubbish really GK Johnson CB CB Flanno Allen Gerrard Lallana Hendo Sterling Sturridge
The week I came back from a three month stay in NZ in 2003 the same Winston Peters quoted further up the thread (NZ's prototype for Farage, if you ask me) was bemoaning the fact that their population, in a country @ the same size as Britain and Ireland. had risen to .... FOUR MILLION! Give me hard-working Poles over Wayne and Waynetta any day.
