The Day Has arrived for The UK

[Janek12]

xenophobia - n, an abnormal fear or hatred of foreigners and strange things.

racism - n
1. (Sociology) the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others.
2. (Sociology) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.

My point being that they're not the same thing.

Judging from the reports that I've seen -- local and abroad -- there's good evidence to indicate that the primary issue for many Leave voters was, in fact, immigration and the need to "stem the tide". Time and again the "immigrants have ruined this country", or "stop immigration and we'll have our country back" lines are repeated ad nauseum. This is xenophobia, the fear or hatred of foreigners, not racism.

The problem is that there really is no "tide" of immigrants in the UK. The figure of 350,000+ immigrants to the UK is often cited and for the sake of argument let's take it as a baseline. The commentary coming from the Brexit campaign and echoed by many Leave voters is that that rate is "completely unsustainable". Ball-parking the UK population at roughly 60 million this number then represents an immigration rate of roughly 0.6%.

The fact is that the UK immigration rate of 0.6% should not really be a problem. For instance Canada, with roughly half the population of the UK, has a perfectly sustainable rate of net immigration at approximately 250,000 per year, or about 0.8%. No significant reports of overwhelming "tides of immigrants" there. I've seen references to economic studies into immigration and fiscal stability and it seems to be generally agreed that anything up to about 1% population increase via immigration year-on-year should be no problem for a healthy Western economy.

And yet I hear senior UK politicians repeat time and again that they're shooting for immigration "in the 10s of thousands". Let's say they mean 50,000, for the sake of discussion. That's 0.08%, one tenth of what Canada sustains year on year! Not only is that a ridiculously low number it's not even considered healthy because Western economies need population growth for sustained economic health and the birth rates are way too low by far.

Want to say "but there is no room for them"? Sorry, not true. Back to Canada for example: almost everyone in Canada lives within a few of the major cities, especially the new immigrants. Same in Australia and many other countries. Sure, London is ridiculously crowded but that's because so many people want to be there, not because there is "no room."

So, is the UK different in some way such that a modest rate of immigration is not sustainable? Or is it something in the character of the people that makes the current rate appear unsustainable.

Coming from a country (Canada) where immigration is generally accepted as a completely normal and necessary part of the country's character I'd have to say that the hew and cry I hear about immigrants here in the UK is a little puzzling. I currently live in Scotland and TBH it feels rather like Canada in some ways: lots of people from lots of places speaking their languages and getting on about their business. No major upset here afaict so ... where's the beef?

I've heard it said more than once by English and Scottish observers -- sorry, don't spend much time elsewhere in the UK -- that the "real" issue is that "people don't like to hear foreign languages on their High Streets." Maybe that's a fair description of the situation, maybe it isn't, but it is a fine example of xenophobia. And I'd say that if that's how you or the folks you call your fellow citizens feel then guess what, you're xenophobic! That certainly doesn't mean your are racist but it is a big step in that direction. And if xenophobic attitudes are accepted as the norm in your neck of the woods then you can bet that some percentage of your lovely neighbours will take that and run with it straight into full-blown racism. It's human nature as we all know: there are always a certain percentage who will push things too far.

Elsewhere in these discussions some have said things like "ban the Muslims, they'll never fit in" and so forth. Yeah, that's definitely xenophobic, however strongly or genuinely you may believe it. Tired of being called xenophobic? Great, don't be. Not likely to change your feelings about these things? Fair enough, your call, but if the shoe fits ...

The problem is you mix xenophobia with - for a lack of a better word - a response to an "invasion".

It is nice to have a few foreigners from exotic countries; it is entertaining to compare notes on culture and mentality. But a few foreigners do not change the cultural and social landscape.

If the foreigners - with a completely different mentality, culture and behavioral patterns - begin to come in such numbers that the cultural and social landscape changes, then the original population begans to oppose the immigration, IMO rightfully so.

The matter is more complex because the "original innocent population" bears responsibility for their governments and hence bears responsibility for arms exports and hence bears partial responsibility for the wars taking place in the countries generating migrants.

But the wars and horrors taking place in so many countries around the world are mainly the work of the people in those countries. It is one thing to supply arms to their hands and it is another thing to use them.
There is really no other reason for the hell on earth in the Middle East and in many countries in Africa than the people living there.

I have translated hundreds of reports on these countries (by UK Home Office, Amnesty International, US Department of State and many other analytical groups) during the last 15 years so I have some idea what I am talking about.
Regrettably, the situation in the world cannot be solved by accepting all the immigrants fleeing from the horrors in their countries, there is just too many of them.

For example, in Ethiopia, there is 100 million inhabitants today and there is a hardline totalitarian regime there. IMO many people there would be entitled to political emigration according to the rules of the 20th century just as my countrymen were during the socialist era. But the current situation is different, there is just too many problems everywhere - and Ethopia is just one country and it would probably take all Europe's resources just to help properly this one country... And then there is the biggets problem of all - it is impossible to change people from the outside, it has never worked and never will...

So it is unfair or at least inaccurate IMO to use the word xenophobia in the context of the current migration flows and rates.

 

[maxd]

Lies, damn lies and statistics ...

"Lies"? Where, exactly? Or do you mean you just don't like what I'm saying?

And statistics are not "lies", they're just numbers. Sometimes useful, sometimes not. But there's a fairly good tradition of human progress that shows they can be very helpful in understanding the world around us.

Also, many people around the world live and work with the same sorts of numbers I'd quoted. As I hear it you're saying you can't. Fair enough but that's your choice, not anything inherently wrong with what I was saying or how I was saying it.

And Scotland is "very homogenous"? I don't think so. Sitting on the bus on my ride into town I hear maybe four languages being spoken, only one of which is English and its regional variants. Given a load of about 40 people that's pretty remarkable for being "homogeneous". Same is true across the city. And Scotland's immigration last year was about 0.5% by the way, only marginally lower than the UK average.

And last but not least your suggestion that the Canada example is unreasonable because it is "an enormous country with mineral wealth and some forests bigger than the whole UK". WTF? Only a very small percentage of the workforce is employed in either the minerals or logging industries. The UK has huge industries of its own, financial being one that comes to mind that is massive in comparison to Canada's. And all that space is something than 99% of Canadian's never see or use, it might as well be moonscape for all the relevance it has to your average citizen.

The bottom line is you've got your way of looking at things and you want to stick with that. Great, fill your boots, but don't think for a minute that you have a better grasp of reality just because you believe in your preconceptions so fervently. Desk thumping and belittling comments are not the path to wisdom and understanding.

 

[KasinoKing]

Lies, damn lies and statistics Max.

Canada is an enormous country with mineral wealth and some forests bigger than the whole UK. The UK is the most densely populated nation in Europe. This leads to stress and deterioration of the quality of life - regardless of where the immigrants appear from.

0.6% of your population supplanted annually is a colossal amount. Net migration of 350,000 is huge, literally an 'Iceland' turning up every year. It also fails to mention that this net figure consists of more than 350,000 arrivals as many UK people have ironically fled overseas because of it, so the replacement of the British population is higher than 350,000.

0.6% over 20 years is another 'London' being brought in in ONE single generation. Plus this new London will breed rapidly and double in size in 10 years. So in a third of your lifetime you have seen 25% of your population changed. This change, ironically, further down the line will so erode our native people and traditions that the 'Free Welcoming Britain' once seen from the outside and the character of it will be lost forever. Max, you moved to a very homogenous region having left a multiculti hellhole - can't the rest of us have that chance?

Nail on the head - AGAIN!

KK

 

[Steviedoo]

Lies, damn lies and statistics Max.

Canada is an enormous country with mineral wealth and some forests bigger than the whole UK. The UK is the most densely populated nation in Europe. This leads to stress and deterioration of the quality of life - regardless of where the immigrants appear from.

0.6% of your population supplanted annually is a colossal amount. Net migration of 350,000 is huge, literally an 'Iceland' turning up every year. It also fails to mention that this net figure consists of more than 350,000 arrivals as many UK people have ironically fled overseas because of it, so the replacement of the British population is higher than 350,000.

0.6% over 20 years is another 'London' being brought in in ONE single generation. Plus this new London will breed rapidly and double in size in 10 years. So in a third of your lifetime you have seen 25% of your population changed. This change, ironically, further down the line will so erode our native people and traditions that the 'Free Welcoming Britain' once seen from the outside and the character of it will be lost forever. Max, you moved to a very homogenous region having left a multiculti hellhole - can't the rest of us have that chance?

when the wave of immigrants .....further down the line will have children. these children will grow up to be British citizens and become natives and upkeep the traditions. and their children will do the same...and so on and so on..



Change is the only constant.

 

[maxd]

So it is unfair or at least inaccurate IMO to use the word xenophobia in the context of the current migration flows and rates.

As I've said, the immigration rate in the UK is not at all unusual -- if I have my facts right at roughly 350k per year -- and is well below what is considered a normal safe level for a healthy, first world country like the England or Scotland.

Show me concrete facts and/or examples to the contrary and I'll gladly school myself. I've been interested in this subject for some time -- 13 years in an overtly racist place like Paris will sharpen your attention on such things -- and from what I've seen there's little exceptional about immigration in the UK other than the hostile response in some areas to it.

And I gave a reasoned argument for the "xenophobia" thing. Believe me, I'm hardly alone in seeing what appears to be good evidence for such a claim. In my experience the perception of the immigration thing is much different here in Scotland than it is in England. Why that might be I suppose we could argue til the cows come home in tutus.

And in case someone is thinking that I'm saying "any number of immigrants is a good thing" then I respectfully suggest you re-read what I've been saying. From what I've heard and read anything up to 1% population growth per year via immigration is considered healthy and sustainable in a Western democracy. 1% immigration ≠ "any number" so please don't make it out as if I'm saying otherwise. AFAIK the UK is well below that 1% so that, and only that, is the point I've been trying to make.

 

[dunover]

"Lies"? Where, exactly? Or do you mean you just don't like what I'm saying?

And statistics are not "lies", they're just numbers. Sometimes useful, sometimes not. But there's a fairly good tradition of human progress that shows they can be very helpful in understanding the world around us.

Also, many people around the world live and work with the same sorts of numbers I'd quoted. As I hear it you're saying you can't. Fair enough but that's your choice, not anything inherently wrong with what I was saying or how I was saying it.

And Scotland is "very homogenous"? I don't think so. Sitting on the bus on my ride into town I hear maybe four languages being spoken, only one of which is English and its regional variants. Given a load of about 40 people that's pretty remarkable for being "homogeneous". Same is true across the city. And Scotland's immigration last year was about 0.5% by the way, only marginally lower than the UK average.

And last but not least your suggestion that the Canada example is unreasonable because it is "an enormous country with mineral wealth and some forests bigger than the whole UK". WTF? Only a very small percentage of the workforce is employed in either the minerals or logging industries. The UK has huge industries of its own, financial being one that comes to mind that is massive in comparison to Canada's. And all that space is something than 99% of Canadian's never see or use, it might as well be moonscape for all the relevance it has to your average citizen.

The bottom line is you've got your way of looking at things and you want to stick with that. Great, fill your boots, but don't think for a minute that you have a better grasp of reality just because you believe in your preconceptions so fervently. Desk thumping and belittling comments are not the path to wisdom and understanding.

Come on Max! You know that old quote concerning statistics (which can always be read 2 different ways) and why I used it! Statistics are worthless without context, all I did was add context. Without context they can be irrelevant, even dishonest whether that is the intent or not, hence the origin of the quote.

As for Canada, a large number have arrived to work on the vast shale oil reserves, and whether they build in the wilderness or not, the fact is it's there and they have the choice to! We don't. Our only option is to build on our dwindling countryside (another facet of Britiain that we are known for "Green and pleasant land" etc.) to accommodate the masses or those fleeing colonization of urban areas.

There was a brilliant documentary recently showing what it's like in London for some indigenous families who have suffered having their locality turned into a place the don't recognize in a matter of decades, and chose to flee to Kent and Essex to find a school with English kids in and still find a church and a pub that have enough visitors to remain open.

Another big lie peddled by the remainers was 'economic benefits'. These 350,000 all need nurses, doctors, policing, housing, social services, roads etc. - ALL public-funded non-productive jobs paid by an indebted government from taxpayer cash, and you wonder why the state deficit is not going down as it should? Yes, their employer (if they have one) gets a short term gain and may pay a few quid extra in corporation tax (if they don't conveniently register in Ireland or offshore that is) but I'm sick of the erroneous argument based on that. Of course the GDP will grow if there are more people in the country, but the growth is funded by borrowing to a large extent.

The rate relative to population of immigration is 25 times greater than at any time before, including Dutch, Hugenot and WW2 refugees in previous times. These people didn't arrive in quantities that couldn't be absorbed and thus maintain 'Britishness' and the fabric of our nation. Now is a different story.

So like the majority of my peers in the UK, I have seen my country turned into a mess and a less pleasant place to live in the last 30 years, quality of life sacrificed on the altar of bogus 'prosperity' which seems to never arrive in the pockets of most: like them I have made the decision 'enough is enough' and if that means losing a few quid I'll happily do so just to have a chance of something better for the future of my family.

If you're in any doubt, look where the main 'leave' areas were - Essex (as I mentioned above) and Lincolnshire/Fenland which have seen 30% of their population arrive from abroad in the last 10 years. So it would appear that a big majority of those who have lived here all their lives would disagree with your take on the 'benefits' Max. This is the huge mistake made by the politicians (and some on here) - NOT listening to those on the sharp end, as usual.

 

[goatwack]

Next time I fancy a drink, I won't just pour the required amount needed to fill the glass. I'm gonna grab a bucket and tip the entire lot into the glass in one swoop.

Let's see how that works out for me

 

[KasinoKing]

Lets face it, the main reason the "remain" group of big businesses & banks wanted to stay in with uncontrolled immigration, was because it gives them an ever increasing customer base from whom to make money.
More people to buy crap food in McDonalds, more people shopping in the supermarkets, more households consuming gas, electricity, satellite TV, mobile phones, diesel & petrol, etc... More people having mortgages and bank accounts; getting into debt with overdrafts and credit cards, earning the banks £millions...
They are only interested in profits and lining their own pockets, not trying to retain the British way of life the "leave" voters wanted. (What's left of it )

Britain is FULL: there are over 1.2 million people waiting for social housing now.
Yet some people want us to carry on with net migration of 333,000 per year? (That was 2015 - only likely to rise).
That means we need to build a city bigger than Newcastle, Brighton or Nottingham EVERY YEAR!!!
It's total madness

Controlling immigration is not racism or xenophobia - it's just common sense.

KK

 

[maxd]

The numbers and info I've offered was given with absolutely no distortion of the facts I'd found or my presentation of them. They're just there.

Your understanding of what goes on in Canada is pretty skewed. The immigrants don't all head off to the tarsands. In fact only a small percentage do or could because of the skills and qualifications required and the jobs available. My brother worked in the oil-related industries until recently. Chemical engineers with 20+ years experience are being made redundant so trust me, the immigrants in Canada are not being gifted with oil jobs as you imagine them to be.

My point about the moonscape seems to have eluded you. If 90% of the immigrants move to the cities -- relatively finite environments -- then it doesn't matter much if you've got 10% more area for growth or 1000%: if no one is using it then it's not part of the equation. And yes "no one using it" really does describe huge areas of Canadian soil.

I'm well aware of the "sharp end" of economic depression and rural decay. I'm the son of a single parent welder and know very well what life in a depressed area feels like. Those realities are undeniable and I'm happy to say that I've never attempted to do so. But anyone that thinks that that decay is the fault of immigrants is deluding themselves as to the failures and neglect of their own government, often over several decades. And I'm not talking about the government's handling of immigration, I'm talking about the systematic erosion of the services and benefits that the population at large depends on. Look to the defunding of schools, healthcare and countless other essential services for the source of those problems. Immigrants are just unlucky enough to be there to catch the crossfire.

Lots of immigrants in depressed areas? Of course there are, that's where they can afford to live. People don't like the changes they bring? Well, that's rather the point isn't it? Why "don't like"? Why is change bad? Is it because people simply don't want it? Well that sucks but all indications are that that is the world we live in. You can make peace with it and live in the modern, multi-cultural world or you can moan about it and cling to some image of a better past that is already dead and gone. It's called globalization and it appears as if it's here to stay no matter how many people vote to "Leave".

You say you're sick of hearing about the supposed benefits of immigration? As you wish but I'm sick about hearing about the acceleration of the expanding universe. Both appear to be facts and neither of us is getting any wiser by ignoring them.

I've read several detailed economic reports over the last year or so regarding the fiscal sustainability of immigration. These applied to Canada, Denmark and the US. Taken as a whole the worst they had to say about immigration is that in the short-term it was a draw: costs = benefits. The main drag on the benefits side was were a disproportionately large percentage of unskilled labourers were entering a heavily welfare-leaning society (Denmark). In most cases the short term benefits are mildly positive and, assuming the immigrants stayed, increasingly so over the course of their productive lives.

 

[Harry_BKK]

I have been an immigrant or rather a migrant for the biggest part of my life. In the last 33 years, after leaving Romania, i moved through 6 countries and to add something else to this thread i spent the last 4 hrs writing up a little report on each country in regards to immigration/migration friendliness. I only took on those countries where i lived a minimum of 2 years, hence indeed experiencing the real life, not just through a holiday. Worst at the top:

1. France (2002-04)
- huge anti-sentiments in the French population against immigrants, especially those from North Africa
- immigrants are heavily disadvantaged in the housing market, banking, schools, job applications etc.
- largest part of immigrants concentrated in ghetto like suburbs where sometimes even the police wouldn't dare driving through
- I lived in Montpellier and the northern suburbs where called "little Arabia"

2. Singapore (2008-12)
- only welcome if you have money and adhere to the T to their strict laws
- if not, GET OUT and that fast
- huge anti-sentiments against Malay, Indian and newly arrived Chinese
- government tries hard to avoid ghetto build-up, e.g. they have fixed percentages of ethnicity per housing block

3. Spain (2004-06)
- friendly to tourists with money, absolutely unfriendly to migrants/immigrants, especially from North Africa and Eastern Europe.
- ghetto like suburbs in every major city

4. Germany (1984-96; 2006-08)
- i am German from birth, although as part of the German minority in Romania
- yet for the local Germans i was always a "Auslaender", and this although my ancestors defended countless times the "homeland" against Ottoman/Turk invasions. Without them Germany probably wouldn't exist in its form today.
- large anti-sentiment against immigrants, especially in the former Eastern Germany
- in some major cities ghetto like suburbs where one nationality of immigrants is in the majority, e.g. Turks, Russians, etc.

5. UK (1997-2002)
- other than the usual funny/sometimes not so funny German jokes i never ever felt any anti-sentiment
- i could only sense sometimes some adversity towards the Indian/Arab immigrants
- UK was the closest for me to call "home"

6. Thailand (2012- present)
- not that much of an immigration country other than for Myanmar/Laos/Cambodia laborers, which is strictly regulated
- everybody else is welcome if you have money
- if not, get out after 30 days when your tourist visa waiver expires or 3 months when you bothered to get a tourist visa
- if you overstay then they ban you from reentering Thailand, ranging from 1 year - indefinite.

 

[maxd]

Controlling immigration is not racism or xenophobia - it's just common sense.

How many times does it have to be said: no one here is advocating uncontrolled immigration. Yes, that would be disastrous.

But growth of 0.5% or thereabouts is totally modest for a Western, developed nation. Fiscal sustainability reports from countless sources across Europe and North America state that time and time again. If there are people already suffering when immigration is modest -- as it currently is in the UK by any reasonable economic analysis -- then maybe government policy, not immigrants, are the place to look for change.

Growth of a Western economy depends in part* on modest, sustained immigration of up to 1%: cut that off and you are significantly damaging the ability of that economy to diversify and grow. That's just economics, not immigration policy.

 

[goatwack]

I love how immigration is just a throwaway term, indicating a glorious addition to that country's wealth and long-term survival. I think somewhere along the line people have selectively forgotten the deluge of illegal immigrants, from a part of the world which despises us and our way of life.

Globalization is irrelevant here, I'm seeing the Islamification of London before my eyes. It is an ideoligical and religious issue as Christianity and Islam do not mix in large numbers occupying such a small space. It's my right not to like politicians' apathy towards preserving this country's Christian values and serving its people first.

It's these economic migrant's desire to better their lives because we open them with open arms in unsustainably large numbers when we are not duty- bound to do so. Where are their brotherly nations in all of this? Fact is, at least here in London, that people are being marginalized as our leaders are bending over backwards to accomodate cultures that have religious and ideoligical hatred towards its hosts. But of course I have to meekly accept this as it is just the natural order of things for fear of being labelled racist. It's like Facebook all over, RIP freedom of speech.

Of course we're getting 350k p/a of doctors, engineers....oh hold on, no we're not. It's a mass of people here for a free lunch. Imagine we sent those numbers to Iran, U.A.E etc. That'll work out well! We'll just send them our Jeremy Kyle- watching jobless equivalent for shits & giggles.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Understand both sides here, however, one of the main LEAVE campaigners said this on Friday, just hours after the result was out:

Quote from my earlier post:

Daniel Hannan in a BBC interview: Leave campaign never promised "radical decline" in immigration .... We want some control.....Free movement of labor will stay....

I am pretty sure you won't see the numbers declining that much, certainly not to a level which might be "acceptable" to everybody.

 

[goatwack]

Understand both sides here, however, one of the main LEAVE campaigner said this on Friday, just hours after the result was out:

Quote from my earlier post:



I am pretty sure you won't see the numbers declining that much, certainly not to a level which might be "acceptable" by everybody.

You gotta love the bemused floundering of the Leave protagonists, almost as if they never quite believed this result would ever happen. BoJo looks like a fish out of water

 

[dunover]

How many times does it have to be said: no one here is advocating uncontrolled immigration. Yes, that would be disastrous.

But growth of 0.5% or thereabouts is totally modest for a Western, developed nation. Fiscal sustainability reports from countless sources across Europe and North America state that time and time again. If there are people already suffering when immigration is modest -- as it currently is in the UK by any reasonable economic analysis -- then maybe government policy, not immigrants, are the place to look for change.

Growth of a Western economy depends on modest, sustained immigration of up to 1%: cut that off and you are significantly damaging the ability of that economy to diversify and grow. That's just economics, not immigration policy.

Nope. Population growth is not the key to a successful economy. Production of goods and services is, and the efficiency thereof.

If 2 UK workers can make 4 cars a week, as opposed to 2.5 workers doing the same, this increases GDP and wealth in real terms.

You are using the artificial definition of growth, in that as KK said an increasing population has bigger demands, makes the government borrow more to employ more public sector non-productive jobs. This leads to overall GDP increase and gives false justification to the claims of the pro-colonization lobby.

It's not how many people we have, but what each produces. At the moment we have a huge and growing population and a slightly increasing GDP as a result. But there are NO improvements in efficiency and GDP per capita, in fact living standards and average incomes are falling in real terms.

it's also worth pointing out that 10 E.Europeans sharing a house and sending much of the income home is not circulating money around the economy as a UK worker would, and is actually an 'invisible import' on the balance of payments sheet for the UK.

 

[maxd]

Well, you guys have clearly decided to ignore my point -- modest immigration (as previously defined) is reasonable and sustainable -- and focus instead on perceived behaviours and evils of your immigrant population. I've been there before -- used to be one of the anti-immigrant crowd I'm ashamed to say -- and know that that debate could go on till hell freezes over to no measurable gain. I'm just not interested.

As to the importance and economic feasibility of immigration I think we're only repeating here what the referendum has already shown us: South of the border it's generally thumbs down to immigration; North of the border it's pretty much thumbs up. I'm happy to say that I live North of the border and can report that the people I've met over the past year have made me feel very welcome. I have good reason to believe they feel similarly about other immigrants as well, more or less independent of where they might hail from. Obviously I think that's a good thing and circumstances permitting I hope make this my home for the foreseeable future. I wish you all well in your chosen homes.

I will say this though: if your area is anything like mine you might want to look at your local primary school and observe the student population. Here it's about 2/3 non-whites, presumably largely from immigrant families. Whatever you may think of immigrants they are here already and they're the future of the UK whether you personally like it or not. In fact in the coming years their tax payments will probably be funding your health care and pensions. How's that for irony?

Growth of a Western economy depends on modest, sustained immigration of up to 1%: cut that off and you are significantly damaging the ability of that economy to diversify and grow. That's just economics, not immigration policy.

Nope. Population growth is not the key to a successful economy.

I should have said "Growth of a Western economy depends in part on modest, sustained immigration of up to 1%." FWIW I'll make that correction now.

And yes, Western economies do depend on population influx for sustainability: (a) because of ageing populations (death), and (b) because of their low birth rates. No immigration = declining population = GDP shrinkage. Bad news.

And last but not least:

Population in the world is currently (2016) growing at a rate of around 1.13% per year.

UK population growth last year -- including those dreaded immigrants -- was roughly 0.77%, a continued slow-down in net growth it should be said. They're coming you know, you know they are!

 

[KasinoKing]

How many times does it have to be said: no one here is advocating uncontrolled immigration. Yes, that would be disastrous.

That is EXACTLY what remaining in the EU gives us - totally uncontrolled immigration (from other EU countries).
Right now that is over 500 million people who are free to come to the UK to live & work with NO restrictions.

Turkey and the Balkan states of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania are now waiting in line to join the EU.
Turkey alone has over 75 million citizens!

So left as it was, we could have been facing net immigration of 500,000, 1,000,000, or who knows, maybe even 2,000,000 in a single year?
Sorry, but it had to be stopped.
Voting "Leave" was our only chance of doing that.

And I say "chance" with a great deal of fear: in the EU parliament today, someone was saying the UK would only get trade deals in return for continued uncontrolled immigration
If that happens, the peasants will be revolting!

KK

 

[Harry_BKK]

That is EXACTLYwhat remaining in the EU gives us - totally uncontrolled immigration (from other EU countries).
Right now that is over 500 million people who are free to come to the UK to live & work with [NO restrictions.

Turkey and the Balkan states of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania are now waiting in line to join the EU.
Turkey alone has over 75 million citizens!

So left as it was, we could have been facing net immigration of 500,000, 1,000,000, or who knows, maybe even 2,000,000 in a single year?
Sorry, but it had to be stopped.
Voting "Leave" was our only chance of doing that.

And I say "chance" with a great deal of fear: in the EU parliament today, someone was saying the UK would only get trade deals in return for continued uncontrolled immigration
If that happens, the peasants will be revolting!

KK

If they get a deal aka Norway, then yes that includes free movement of labor. And the leaders of the LEAVE campaign knew that all along, see the quote in my post #263, they just lied to everybody for months.

It will also include the incorporation of a good percentage of the EU laws, regulations and directives.

To top it all off the EU leaders will want to show that they won't go soft on the UK to avoid other countries getting encouragement to do the same.

 

[Dinahnana]

That is EXACTLY what remaining in the EU gives us - totally uncontrolled immigration (from other EU countries).
Right now that is over 500 million people who are free to come to the UK to live & work with NO restrictions.

Turkey and the Balkan states of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania are now waiting in line to join the EU.
Turkey alone has over 75 million citizens!

So left as it was, we could have been facing net immigration of 500,000, 1,000,000, or who knows, maybe even 2,000,000 in a single year?
Sorry, but it had to be stopped.
Voting "Leave" was our only chance of doing that.

And I say "chance" with a great deal of fear: in the EU parliament today, someone was saying the UK would only get trade deals in return for continued uncontrolled immigration
If that happens, the peasants will be revolting!

KK

Sorry KK but I have to say the UK isn't exactly the be all and end all of migrant destinations. You talk like there is going to be an invasion of migrants which is not the case I am sure. Also I think countries like Turkey have a ways to go in order to be accepted in the EU.

You also must have noticed on the news that there was quite a large anti-brexit protest in London this evening. Scotland and Northern Ireland aren't at all happy with the whole Brexit thing. Last year you had a net immigration of 185,000. Those figures are nowhere near what you are talking about. At any rate is pointless to discuss this any further because people in the leave camp will stubbornly stand by their choice even if the ship sinks which I hope it doesn't.

Last point if the UK gets a free tariff deal without free movement it will have to pay for it which negates the Brexit campaigns all of that lovely EU money UK will save and give to the NHS. If the UK goes it alone it is quite possible that London will over time cease to be a major banking centre in Europe and that will hurt the British economy.

 

[goatwack]

Sorry KK but I have to say the UK isn't exactly the be all and end all of migrant destinations. You talk like there is going to be an invasion of migrants which is not the case I am sure. Also I think countries like Turkey have a ways to go in order to be accepted in the EU.

You also must have noticed on the news that there was quite a large anti-brexit protest in London this evening. Scotland and Northern Ireland aren't at all happy with the whole Brexit thing. Last year you had a net immigration of 185,000. Those figures are nowhere near what you are talking about. At any rate is pointless to discuss this any further because people in the leave camp will stubbornly stand by their choice even if the ship sinks which I hope it doesn't.

Last point if the UK gets a free tariff deal without free movement it will have to pay for it which negates the Brexit campaigns all of that lovely EU money UK will save and give to the NHS. If the UK goes it alone it is quite possible that London will over time cease to be a major banking centre in Europe and that will hurt the British economy.

The UK's lost its triple-A credit rating if that helps :bubbles:

 

[Dinahnana]

The UK's lost its triple-A credit rating if that helps :bubbles:

Again Gotwack you made me laugh. Thanks for that It's a very tense time for everybody I suppose.

 

[dunover]

Sorry KK but I have to say the UK isn't exactly the be all and end all of migrant destinations. You talk like there is going to be an invasion of migrants which is not the case I am sure. Also I think countries like Turkey have a ways to go in order to be accepted in the EU.

You also must have noticed on the news that there was quite a large anti-brexit protest in London this evening. Scotland and Northern Ireland aren't at all happy with the whole Brexit thing. Last year you had a net immigration of 185,000. Those figures are nowhere near what you are talking about. At any rate is pointless to discuss this any further because people in the leave camp will stubbornly stand by their choice even if the ship sinks which I hope it doesn't.

Last point if the UK gets a free tariff deal without free movement it will have to pay for it which negates the Brexit campaigns all of that lovely EU money UK will save and give to the NHS. If the UK goes it alone it is quite possible that London will over time cease to be a major banking centre in Europe and that will hurt the British economy.

You're so far off the mark with that it's unreal mate!

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Max - this is what (as a chap who studied economics for 4 years!) I was trying to tell you about the one-sided rather glib "immigration grows the economy" argument. It does in GDP terms because the government borrows money to fund it, but there is zero or negative impact on per capita wealth (which is the REAL way to judge if the average individual is better-off.)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[maxd]

Actually osulle was almost right in that the number was bang on for the EU. From that BBC article:

The figure for EU-only net migration was 184,000, equalling its record high.

RE "the hoards are waiting to flood in": record immigration to the UK has, as I've repeated many times, been well below what is considered healthy for a Western developed nation. That number is apparently 1% per year which in the UK would mean roughly 650,000 which is almost twice what the record number has recently been. So, theoretically , there's a considerable way to go yet and -- I believe it could be reasonably argued -- it might not have been so wise to dump the entire EU project because of something that might've maybe happened some time down the road. Needless to say those who wanted to dump the EU anyway would certainly disagree.

That said having your hands tied in terms of any control on immigration does not seem a wise course to follow over the long run. Perhaps that could have been something to negotiate with the EU -- safe limits -- but that's all piffle now.

... there is zero or negative impact on per capita wealth (which is the REAL way to judge if the average individual is better-off.)

We're not talking about whether the average person is richer -- I reckon current government policies have a hell of a lot more to do with that than a modest level of immigration does -- we're talking about whether the nation as a whole is economically healthy or not. As far as I know GDP is the usual measure of that.

I've looked at your migration watch site and it's obviously a platform to press the anti-immigrant agenda. Not much of a reliable source for level-headed and bias-free analysis, AFAICT.

Respectfully guys, I'm done here. Thank you for your thoughts and time but IMO there's not much to be gained from continually kicking this can back and forth across the street.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Read this article and you will see what you voted for and what is now left over from those, and that only 6 days after the vote.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Wait a few months and there will be nothing left what the LEAVE campaign so greatly announced as usual when politicians promise something

The best you can hope for is a Norway deal, maybe a small Norway+, certainly nothing of the sort your politicians and campaigners promised.

From my point of view, as a distant observer, this will end up as the biggest political FARCE in history, and probably the most costly one as well.

 

[Steviedoo]

Read this article and you will see what you voted for and what is now left over from those, and that only 6 days after the vote.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Wait a few months and there will be nothing left what the LEAVE campaign so greatly announced as usual when politicians promise something

The best you can hope for is a Norway deal, maybe a small Norway+, certainly nothing of the sort your politicians and campaigners promised.

From my point of view, as a distant observer, this will end up as the biggest political FARCE in history, and probably the most costly one as well.

Politicians who lie. Shocking .
Not.

Just wondering what all the people who voted to leave....feel right about now?