OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[swaledale]

thats far too simplistic, people aren't just a drain on the state when they reach 65! what's needed to pay the pensions isn't immigrants its money, and that can be generated in many ways - taxes for a start

Yes exactly, who is going to pay the taxes? Who is going to fill the job vacancies? No over 65's aren't a drain on the state though 50% of welfare benefits go to over 65's and they take a large proportion of the NHs budget as well.

How is that simplistic to you saying 2 million is too many???

[Andy_Faber]

Yes exactly, who is going to pay the taxes? Who is going to fill the job vacancies? No over 65's aren't a drain on the state though 50% of welfare benefits go to over 65's and they take a large proportion of the NHs budget as well.

How is that simplistic to you saying 2 million is too many???

Yes I'm afraid it is, it's a matter of Maths again, that two million won't magically not get older so the burden will become even greater, and greater, and greater, it will become like a snowball rolling downhill. I would happily pay an extra penny in the pound in nic to contribute to an old age welfare system designed to keep me and my dependants safe and well in their old age

[swaledale]

And you accuse me of being simplistic! The fact is that its a complex calculation and your maths seems to ignore a number of factors.

How do you know an extra 1p or 2p or whatever will be enough to provide the services required for pensioners?

If you stop immigration and thereby with the current birth rate increase the proportion of older to younger people in the population, WHO is going to be providing these services that you are quite happy to pay for?

How do you know that the majority of immigrants are going to stay and spend their old age here? Current indications are that over 50% actually return home.

You have answered how if there is nobody to fill the job vacancies (not those that provide caring/health services) and therefore economic out put declines as a result the taxation gap is going to be filled, this is in addition to the additional contribution you have said you would be willing to pay.

Unfortunately your taking a simple figure and making a very simplistic assumption without considering all the effects, your right is a matter of maths but its a far more complicated maths than you have stated.

I can see why its appealing to think that simply stopping immigration so that say the balance between inward and outward is equal, unfortunately the way the world economy works, the ageing demographic and global population growth means that it would not have the effect you desire.

[Andy_Faber]

And you accuse me of being simplistic! The fact is that its a complex calculation and your maths seems to ignore a number of factors.

How do you know an extra 1p or 2p or whatever will be enough to provide the services required for pensioners?

If you stop immigration and thereby with the current birth rate increase the proportion of older to younger people in the population, WHO is going to be providing these services that you are quite happy to pay for?

How do you know that the majority of immigrants are going to stay and spend their old age here? Current indications are that over 50% actually return home.

You have answered how if there is nobody to fill the job vacancies (not those that provide caring/health services) and therefore economic out put declines as a result the taxation gap is going to be filled, this is in addition to the additional contribution you have said you would be willing to pay.

Unfortunately your taking a simple figure and making a very simplistic assumption without considering all the effects, your right is a matter of maths but its a far more complicated maths than you have stated.

I can see why its appealing to think that simply stopping immigration so that say the balance between inward and outward is equal, unfortunately the way the world economy works, the ageing demographic and global population growth means that it would not have the effect you desire.

Honest answers?

1/2p - Idon't know, I was generalising, it was my way of saying my personal circumstances and ethos mean if I knew extra tax was addressing that issue I for one would be OK with it.

Stop immigration. I didn't say stop immigration, typical of you to jump to an extreme assumption. In the short term, the failure of successive UK govts to invest in training means we desperately need immigrants in some areas, at least til we get our **** together

Providing services - very grateful for the Indian nurse who tended to my daughter recently, not fussed about the army of Spanish barristas working for coffee-house chains who pay no UK tax

50% returning home - I guess you've made that up

Filling vacancies - like I said, I never said STOP immigration

Your downfall is that you start with a stance ('immigration is good') and find justification for it, I'm looking at solving a problem and can see that there are other more progressive ways of solving it, and that IMO the compound impact of mob-handing the problem just stores up grief for the future.

[swaledale]

Honest answers?

1/2p - Idon't know, I was generalising, it was my way of saying my personal circumstances and ethos mean if I knew extra tax was addressing that issue I for one would be OK with it.

Stop immigration. I didn't say stop immigration, typical of you to jump to an extreme assumption. In the short term, the failure of successive UK govts to invest in training means we desperately need immigrants in some areas, at least til we get our **** together

Providing services - very grateful for the Indian nurse who tended to my daughter recently, not fussed about the army of Spanish barristas working for coffee-house chains who pay no UK tax

50% returning home - I guess you've made that up

Filling vacancies - like I said, I never said STOP immigration

Your downfall is that you start with a stance ('immigration is good') and find justification for it, I'm looking at solving a problem and can see that there are other more progressive ways of solving it, and that IMO the compound impact of mob-handing the problem just stores up grief for the future.

My downfall is i stat from the stance immigration is good? Really? Thats an assumption i was responding to your assertion and i quote

"Half a million a year just has to stop, its bonkers. I repeat what I've said before, I love my fellow man so long as he comes in peace, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, but a million every two years is IMO the main reason our public services are creaking, we appear to need extra immigrants just to service the extra immigrants."

That to me says STOP IMMIGRATION, not that you want reasonable immigration or controlled immigration and if the latter is what you mean then say so.

You say solving the problem, mm is this a "problem" thats been used by right wingers to whip up hysteria, when the truth is a little more subtle - lets look at some facts, the North East voted leave heavily, yet are not areas where immigration is a big problem, largely because there are no jobs! The gap between perception and reality is rather big - the problem in many areas is economic decline (funnily enough as a result of Tory industrial or political policies and world economics) with as you correctly say lack of retraining.

Its not however a question of retraining that will solve the "labour shortage", yes there is a skills mismatch but there is also a labour shortage and it is there in unskilled work as much as skilled work so its about the numbers available to work.

No i did not make the 50% up, the facts are that 33% of eu migrant workers return to their country within a year and that 50% of NI numbers are out of use after one year.

But you were implying that the majority of immigrants would stay and become pensioners!

Yes I make the point that overall immigration is good for the country, there is certainly more evidence that supports that than the emotional, poorly evidenced view that its a problem - I'd suggest before something is cited as a problem its worth finding out whether that actually is the case and if so the nature of the problem! That way any solutions can be appropriate and whats more actually be benficial rather than have negative effects which people haven't considered!

[Andy_Faber]

That to me says STOP IMMIGRATION, not that you want reasonable immigration or controlled immigration and if the latter is what you mean then say so.

Yes the latter is what I mean.

[swaledale]

Yes the latter is what I mean.

It helps to be specific, though whats the evidence that immigration is a problem per se?

[ramAnag]

It helps to be specific, though whats the evidence that immigration is a problem per se?

It hurts me to say it...but it is a problem Swale. Furthermore, one of the problems is that it is never acknowledged as a problem by those whose politically correct instincts say otherwise. You, I imagine, and I have avoided this issue by having the wit and subsequently the relative affluence to escape the 'problem' on a day to day level but if you'd been left behind on the back streets of any inner city where your colour and heritage now place you in the minority you might think differently. To a large extent this was what, misguidedly, led to the Brexit 'victory' a year ago imo. I speak as someone who recognises the value of immigration, is wholly opposed to racism and has given court evidence against the policing of an anti NF rally but to deny that there are certain problems associated with how immigration has been managed is, I believe, a mistake.

[swaledale]

It hurts me to say it...but it is a problem Swale. Furthermore, one of the problems is that it is never acknowledged as a problem by those whose politically correct instincts say otherwise. You, I imagine, and I have avoided this issue by having the wit and subsequently the relative affluence to escape the 'problem' on a day to day level but if you'd been left behind on the back streets of any inner city where your colour and heritage now place you in the minority you might think differently. To a large extent this was what, misguidedly, led to the Brexit 'victory' a year ago imo. I speak as someone who recognises the value of immigration, is wholly opposed to racism and has given court evidence against the policing of an anti NF rally but to deny that there are certain problems associated with how immigration has been managed is, I believe, a mistake.

Ok ram Anag what is the problem with immigration..Discuss!

[swaledale]

It hurts me to say it...but it is a problem Swale. Furthermore, one of the problems is that it is never acknowledged as a problem by those whose politically correct instincts say otherwise. You, I imagine, and I have avoided this issue by having the wit and subsequently the relative affluence to escape the 'problem' on a day to day level but if you'd been left behind on the back streets of any inner city where your colour and heritage now place you in the minority you might think differently. To a large extent this was what, misguidedly, led to the Brexit 'victory' a year ago imo. I speak as someone who recognises the value of immigration, is wholly opposed to racism and has given court evidence against the policing of an anti NF rally but to deny that there are certain problems associated with how immigration has been managed is, I believe, a mistake.

But your not addressing what Brexit was supposed to address which was EU migration, it won't address non EU migration, which is a totally different matter, even though to some extent that may have clouded the thinking of those who voted for Brexit, although if it did influence their vote then clearly there is an issue over people actually understanding reality.

Membership of the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration from outside the EU.

[roger_ramjet]

Membership of the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration from outside the EU.

I fear this is you at your naive best Swale. In that all of our domestic laws have been influenced by EU membership requirements for over 40 years, you cannot possibly say that with any conviction.

I would suggest that EU immigration has been primarily responsible for the control and even reduction in non EEA immigration, so those who dislike the Asian etc migration of the 50s and 60s onwards should be grateful for the fact that Eastern European immigration via EU membership has "controlled the flood".

The prioritisation of EEA migrants over and above non EEA ones as part of a wider protectionism ("putting our own first", in EU terms) will have controlled what otherwise would have had to have been been a massive Asian immigration to satisfy our employment needs.

A strange argument but those who objected to immigration on racial grounds may have had a lot to thank the EU for. Now that is what I call irony!

[swaledale]

I fear this is you at your naive best Swale. In that all of our domestic laws have been influenced by EU membership requirements for over 40 years, you cannot possibly say that with any conviction.

I would suggest that EU immigration has been primarily responsible for the control and even reduction in non EEA immigration, so those who dislike the Asian etc migration of the 50s and 60s onwards should be grateful for the fact that Eastern European immigration via EU membership has "controlled the flood".

The prioritisation of EEA migrants over and above non EEA ones as part of a wider protectionism ("putting our own first", in EU terms) will have controlled what otherwise would have had to have been been a massive Asian immigration to satisfy our employment needs.

A strange argument but those who objected to immigration on racial grounds may have had a lot to thank the EU for. Now that is what I call irony!

Oh Rog thats you at your obtuse best, look at a situation and extrapolate a hypothesis which is so full of caveats that its hardly worth saying in the first place.

What evidence do you have that there would not have been controls on non EU immigration if we had not been in the EU? Yes there may well have been immigration to meet employment needs, but thats different from free movement of people, in facts it is most likely what will be the case after Brexit - the immigration figures post Brexit will be interesting!

But thats not the point I was making as you well know! ramAnag was postulating about immigration with respect to asian/afro caribbeans in cities, in response to a discussion about EU migration, Brexit is after all the subject of this thread and its the Eu free movment of people that the Brexit camp get steamed up about as if the EU was responsible for Uk immigration policy in the 50's and 60's, which clearly it wasn't.

I was merely trying to get some clarify into the debate but with you hovering in the wings to toss in some obscurity its kind of difficult.

Oh and this comment that all our domestic laws have been influenced by EU membership is totally untrue! Many l was had no relation to the EU And where laws have been agreed at an EU level, I'd be interested to learn where you think we might have gone down a different path or how you explain UK agendas that were adopted by the EU or do you think the UK had no influence whatsoever?

Either your naive or your as usual taking a devils advocate approach,

[Andy_Faber]

It hurts me to say it...but it is a problem Swale. Furthermore, one of the problems is that it is never acknowledged as a problem by those whose politically correct instincts say otherwise. You, I imagine, and I have avoided this issue by having the wit and subsequently the relative affluence to escape the 'problem' on a day to day level but if you'd been left behind on the back streets of any inner city where your colour and heritage now place you in the minority you might think differently. To a large extent this was what, misguidedly, led to the Brexit 'victory' a year ago imo. I speak as someone who recognises the value of immigration, is wholly opposed to racism and has given court evidence against the policing of an anti NF rally but to deny that there are certain problems associated with how immigration has been managed is, I believe, a mistake.

Thank you R, that pretty much sums up my position too and an honest, non-PC, country-wide debate would move 'us' on no end

[ramAnag]

But your not addressing what Brexit was supposed to address which was EU migration, it won't address non EU migration, which is a totally different matter, even though to some extent that may have clouded the thinking of those who voted for Brexit, although if it did influence their vote then clearly there is an issue over people actually understanding reality.

Membership of the EU has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration from outside the EU.

Sorry, had to be elsewhere. I know I'm not addressing what Brexit was supposed to be about and I know Brexit won't address non EU migration but I don't believe everyone did. I believe there was a 'backlash' from people who often don't even vote to make their voices heard over concerns regarding immigration. Farage knew that and it makes the current impact of Brexit even more frustrating from my point of view.
You and I are relatively privileged living in the comfortable and slightly elitist Derbyshire Dales, but go to the back streets of Bradford, Burnley, Rotherham, Oldham, Rochdale etc...even Derby and you'll find a less comfortable reality. I hardly recognise the Lancashire mill town I grew up in and I don't blame immigrants for that but the management of such immigration has, imo, led to the development of, for want of a better expression, 'ghettos' where the 'English' white lower working class or underclass are in the minority. This has provoked resentment and also a sort of 'protectionism' amongst some of the estates - think Mackworth and parts of Chadd - which simply isn't healthy. In short I am not blaming immigrants for creating this problem but there are issues with levels/management of immigration and to that extent Andy has a point.

[roger_ramjet]

Oh Rog thats you at your obtuse best, look at a situation and extrapolate a hypothesis which is so full of caveats that its hardly worth saying in the first place.

What evidence do you have that there would not have been controls on non EU immigration if we had not been in the EU? Yes there may well have been immigration to meet employment needs, but thats different from free movement of people, in facts it is most likely what will be the case after Brexit - the immigration figures post Brexit will be interesting!

But thats not the point I was making as you well know! ramAnag was postulating about immigration with respect to asian/afro caribbeans in cities, in response to a discussion about EU migration, Brexit is after all the subject of this thread and its the Eu free movment of people that the Brexit camp get steamed up about as if the EU was responsible for Uk immigration policy in the 50's and 60's, which clearly it wasn't.

I was merely trying to get some clarify into the debate but with you hovering in the wings to toss in some obscurity its kind of difficult.

Oh and this comment that all our domestic laws have been influenced by EU membership is totally untrue! Many l was had no relation to the EU And where laws have been agreed at an EU level, I'd be interested to learn where you think we might have gone down a different path or how you explain UK agendas that were adopted by the EU or do you think the UK had no influence whatsoever?

Either your naive or your as usual taking a devils advocate approach,

😈😈😈😈😈😈