Steve K

Dec 15 2014, 09:28 AM

So much to challenge there Krugerman. Let's start with migration. Are you trying to tell us that millions of migrants are totally disconnected from us having a million unemployed, many more only able to get zero hours jobs and housing prices unaffordable for so many?

" contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems," anyone believe this?

Affa

Dec 15 2014, 02:57 PM

Steve K

Dec 15 2014, 09:28 AM

So much to challenge there Krugerman. Let's start with migration. Are you trying to tell us that millions of migrants are totally disconnected from us having a million unemployed, many more only able to get zero hours jobs and housing prices unaffordable for so many?

" contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems," anyone believe this?

To put in correct context .......
" I do not feel there is any issue regarding the arrival of eastern Europeans after 2004, because .... contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems,"

Affa

Dec 15 2014, 03:13 PM

After too many posts focusing on what should be done to reduce the UK population to a more manageable level, meantime the population just keeps increasing.

An addendum - of interest to the debate. The underlying justification for the UK becoming Europe's leading (biggest) economy in the coming decades is 'population expansion', whereas in Germany and to a lesser degree France their populations are falling due to a lower birth rate.

RJD

Dec 15 2014, 02:57 PM

Not true Krug, Blair and Brown could have recognised it as a problem that would have ongoing repercussions, they did not, they did the opposite. Claiming they were hamstrung by EU regulations is a cop out.

Affa

Dec 15 2014, 04:56 PM

Germany regretted having imposed a transition period for migrants following the 2004 EU expansion. They calculated that it delayed their recovery, and that the UK stole a march on them.

krugerman

Dec 15 2014, 04:20 PM

RJD

Dec 15 2014, 02:57 PM

Not true Krug, Blair and Brown could have recognised it as a problem that would have ongoing repercussions, they did not, they did the opposite. Claiming they were hamstrung by EU regulations is a cop out.

You mean like how Mr Cameron is doing ?

It is not possible to alter or change treaties or signed agreements without negotiation, as the Conservatives know only too well after first agreeing to the free movement principle, and then deciding they want to disagree with it.

The previous government could have put a transition period on the free movement of people from the new states in 2004, for upto 7 years max, just as they did with Romania and Bulgaria, that was the only option available, same as it is currently the only option available to the present government, other than to re-negotiate the agreement or leave the EU.

RJD

Dec 15 2014, 03:16 PM

Affa

Dec 15 2014, 03:13 PM

After too many posts focusing on what should be done to reduce the UK population to a more manageable level, meantime the population just keeps increasing.

An addendum - of interest to the debate. The underlying justification for the UK becoming Europe's leading (biggest) economy in the coming decades is 'population expansion', whereas in Germany and to a lesser degree France their populations are falling due to a lower birth rate.

I think you will find it is the UK and France that have increasing populations and Germany plus Italy that do not. The latter two countries have major problems because their ageing populations have put little on one-side for their old age. Some of them have, horror of horrors, company pensions which are part of the company Balance Sheets.

RJD

Dec 15 2014, 04:59 PM

Affa

Dec 15 2014, 04:56 PM

Germany regretted having imposed a transition period for migrants following the 2004 EU expansion. They calculated that it delayed their recovery, and that the UK stole a march on them.

Remember that Schroeder, SDP, left the Sick Man of Europe for Merkel to patch up.

krugerman

Dec 15 2014, 06:24 PM

The whole point of the debate over EU migration is that the UK is the only nation out of 28 which wants to renegotiate the terms, we are the only nation moaning about the free movement principle, the Polish leader has made it clear that the principle of free movement cannot be renegotiated.

The altering of these agreements or treaties requires unanimous agreement, and it dosent look like Cameron is going to get that, add to that the fact that he may not even be PM in around 20 weeks time, there is no immediate prospect of changing the rules.

Affa

Dec 15 2014, 06:40 PM

Not the main reason, but it has to be stated first, is that the UK has been the destination for 60% of all EU migration since 2004.

RJD

Dec 15 2014, 04:59 PM

Affa

Dec 15 2014, 04:56 PM

Germany regretted having imposed a transition period for migrants following the 2004 EU expansion. They calculated that it delayed their recovery, and that the UK stole a march on them.

Remember that Schroeder, SDP, left the Sick Man of Europe for Merkel to patch up.

Tigger

Dec 15 2014, 07:30 PM

This is clearly nonsense because if you check you's find that France and especially Germany have taken if far more migrant workers than the UK, you'll also find that Britain is alone in thinking that it is the biggest threat to the nation state.

The power of hyperbole and scare tactics strike again.

Well having checked this a bit more I found some figures dating from 2010 on Wiki, (collated from the EU) Germany had the most with 3.396m, followed by Spain with 2,328m, the UK came in third just above France with 2.249m. As a percentage of population Britain does not even make the top ten! The only statistic that might give your claims some limited support would be the fact that more immigrants came to Britain in 2013 than any other nation, but we still did not make the top ten as a percentage!

We are being misled by numerous politicians and the press, that much is certain.

Quote:

 

While more than 60 percent of the migration streams
from the NMS-8 to EU-15 countries went to Germany
and Austria before the eastern enlargement,
this fraction has decreased to 20 percent thereafter.
The percentage of migration flows to the UK and
Ireland, on the other hand, has gone up to more than
60 percent after the EU eastern enlargement (Baas
and Brücker 2010, OECD 2010).

Affa

Dec 15 2014, 07:54 PM

Tigger

Dec 15 2014, 07:30 PM

This is clearly nonsense because if you check you's find that France and especially Germany have taken if far more migrant workers than the UK, you'll also find that Britain is alone in thinking that it is the biggest threat to the nation state.

The power of hyperbole and scare tactics strike again.

Well having checked this a bit more I found some figures dating from 2010 on Wiki, (collated from the EU) Germany had the most with 3.396m, followed by Spain with 2,328m, the UK came in third just above France with 2.249m. As a percentage of population Britain does not even make the top ten! The only statistic that might give your claims some limited support would be the fact that more immigrants came to Britain in 2013 than any other nation, but we still did not make the top ten as a percentage!

We are being misled by numerous politicians and the press, that much is certain.

https://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/facts/DICE/Labour-Market-and-Migration/Migration/Labour-Migration/dice-rep-free-mov-labour/fileBinary/dice-rep-free-mov-labour.pdf

Quote:

 

While more than 60 percent of the migration streams
from the NMS-8 to EU-15 countries went to Germany
and Austria before the eastern enlargement,
this fraction has decreased to 20 percent thereafter.
The percentage of migration flows to the UK and
Ireland, on the other hand, has gone up to more than
60 percent after the EU eastern enlargement (Baas
and Brücker 2010, OECD 2010).

krugerman

Dec 15 2014, 09:17 AM

For me personaly, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of free movement of people across Europe, and I do not feel there is any issue regarding the arrival of eastern Europeans after 2004, because contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems, except for in a small handfull of isolated areas such as Boston in Lincolnshire.

papasmurf

Dec 15 2014, 11:22 AM

Steve K

Dec 15 2014, 10:46 AM

We have to stabilise the population,

"We" have to lower the population down to the long term sustainable carrying capacity.

Pro Veritas

Dec 15 2014, 08:01 PM

krugerman

Dec 15 2014, 09:17 AM

For me personaly, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of free movement of people across Europe, and I do not feel there is any issue regarding the arrival of eastern Europeans after 2004, because contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems, except for in a small handfull of isolated areas such as Boston in Lincolnshire.

That Labour and their supporters think this - or rather keep preaching this even when they know it is a lie - is the reason UKIP is a threat to Labour.

The unskilled and semi-skilled working-man was - literally - raped to death by Labour's immigration policy.

Labour's stance on immigration did more harm to the "working man" of Britain and his standard of living and economic security than Thatcher.

Until Labour a) admits this, b) apologises for it, and - MOST IMPORTANTLY - c) SIGNIFICANTLY changes its stance on immigration they will not be trusted by the working-man.

As a working-class man, who earns NMW, on a less than 35 hr a week contract (but who - because I am not irresponsible enough to have kids I can't afford - is unable to claim Working Tax Credits) I would - as things stand - rather vote Tory than Labour because the Tories are at least making a token effort to do something about immigration.

However, if UKIP are standing in my constituency I will be voting for them; even though I disagree with most of their policies.

All The Best

Tigger

Dec 15 2014, 08:19 PM

Indeed, I'd be hard pressed to slip in an insult with that comprehensive list.

I should be a Tory these days but I despise the selfishness it promotes as self reliance, I also suffered under the various Conservative governments of the 80's, but I find it very hard to support Labour after the stab in the back it gave it's core voters, as for UKIP it's almost as if the country has a death wish.

Rich

Dec 15 2014, 08:14 PM

Does the carrying capacity still stand at 22 million Papa? (serious question)

Tigger

Dec 15 2014, 08:38 PM

On this occasion I respect your point of view but I cannot agree that we have to cut our nose off to spite our faces by leaving the EU, until the UK itself bucks it's ideas up and restricts employers from gorging on imported labour my fear is that cheap labour will simply be sourced from even less wealthy nations post exit.

Reform the labour and jobs market otherwise the nationalism will quickly transform in to racism. Other European nations have managed this reform so why can't we?

And if anyone else feels like pointing out that a tiny percentage of right wing nutters in Europe share these concerns then don't bother, it's a tiny percentage, remember?

Rich

Dec 15 2014, 09:04 PM

Tigger

Dec 15 2014, 08:38 PM

On this occasion I respect your point of view but I cannot agree that we have to cut our nose off to spite our faces by leaving the EU, until the UK itself bucks it's ideas up and restricts employers from gorging on imported labour my fear is that cheap labour will simply be sourced from even less wealthy nations post exit.

Reform the labour and jobs market otherwise the nationalism will quickly transform in to racism. Other European nations have managed this reform so why can't we?

And if anyone else feels like pointing out that a tiny percentage of right wing nutters in Europe share these concerns then don't bother, it's a tiny percentage, remember?

It's not just the jobs market that is suffering for the UK taxpayers, it is also the infrastructure of the whole of society that is now creaking at the seams, it was never built or intended to cope with so many bods, can our essential utilities cope with demand? how can any goverment plan a futuristic budget when no fxxxxr knows how many are already here and how many more will come? ............how long is a piece of string?

We must shut the gates for a time and take stock and then resume in a controlled manner that is befitting the size of THIS country and tell the EU to look to their own problems.

Montjoie

Dec 15 2014, 02:19 PM

AndyK

Dec 15 2014, 12:05 PM

Happy Hornet

Dec 15 2014, 12:02 PM

Yes it does, I'm of post war immigrant stock and (health permitting) I have another 30 years of working and tax paying ahead of me. The country needs people like me.

We don't however need pensioners like you.

Explain to me the PRACTICAL flaws in my argument.

The pensioners are living off their own saved money.

The good old myth of saved money. Issue is that it's mostly under the form of promises (bonds, etc.) which may have been acquired way too easily from extra money available which should have been used back then to make sure the debt didn't pile up so fast and so high. Debt which was partially fueled by mechanisms which helped buy such promises at a discount.

Tigger

Dec 15 2014, 07:57 PM

Quote:

 

The percentage of migration flows to the UK and
Ireland, on the other hand, has gone up to more than
60 percent after the EU eastern enlargement (Baas
and Brücker 2010, OECD 2010).

krugerman

Dec 15 2014, 10:39 AM

There is little corelation between European migrants and house prices, the first thing to remember is that very few migrants buy property, the vast majority rent, though admitedly this does have a knock-on effect to a limited degree.

The house price boom has much more to do with not enough homes been built for purchase, the government (both Labour and this government) have done very little to help the situation, house builders make huge profits because demand is so high, and the staggering rise in property was well under way before the new EU member states joined in 2004, infact it began in the late 1990s.

The simple answer to this is - if there is a housing shortage, build more homes

Tytoalba

Dec 15 2014, 11:16 PM

There is IMO, a basic dishonesty about immigration that sets out to justify it. Work permits would solve the problem of need in all businesses and professions. The open door policy is NOT to our long term benefit. .

Pro Veritas

Dec 15 2014, 08:01 PM

krugerman

Dec 15 2014, 09:17 AM

For me personaly, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of free movement of people across Europe, and I do not feel there is any issue regarding the arrival of eastern Europeans after 2004, because contrary to popular belief it did not and has not caused any major or significant problems, except for in a small handfull of isolated areas such as Boston in Lincolnshire.

That Labour and their supporters think this - or rather keep preaching this even when they know it is a lie - is the reason UKIP is a threat to Labour.

The unskilled and semi-skilled working-man was - literally - raped to death by Labour's immigration policy.

Labour's stance on immigration did more harm to the "working man" of Britain and his standard of living and economic security than Thatcher.

Until Labour a) admits this, b) apologises for it, and - MOST IMPORTANTLY - c) SIGNIFICANTLY changes its stance on immigration they will not be trusted by the working-man.

As a working-class man, who earns NMW, on a less than 35 hr a week contract (but who - because I am not irresponsible enough to have kids I can't afford - is unable to claim Working Tax Credits) I would - as things stand - rather vote Tory than Labour because the Tories are at least making a token effort to do something about immigration.

However, if UKIP are standing in my constituency I will be voting for them; even though I disagree with most of their policies.

All The Best

Pro Veritas

Dec 16 2014, 08:48 AM

If we could get the right deal on sensible and necessary controls to the "free movement" principle then I would prefer us to be In the EU than Out.

I just don't think that is even remotely possible because the €urocrats don't deal with reality and practicality they deal in ideology.

Any socio-political ideology that can not adapt to the reality of the situation on the ground is not only broken, but also very, very dangerous.

All The Best

Affa

Dec 15 2014, 11:46 PM

Tytoalba

Dec 15 2014, 11:16 PM

There is IMO, a basic dishonesty about immigration that sets out to justify it. Work permits would solve the problem of need in all businesses and professions. The open door policy is NOT to our long term benefit. .

There's a bigger plan, one that doesn't much consider Brits or the UK worker.
First off it is expected that most Poles will eventually return to Poland having built up a nest egg, enough to go into business for themselves back home (for example). Money made here ends up in Poland. The NET effect of this Eastern migration is that the Polish economy gets a huge boost (already a Tiger economy of sorts for the region). This is an objective of the EU, and consented to by the UK business community. Not only because it affords them lots of cheap labour, but because a thriving Poland is another investment opportunity. Having this sort of laundering of resources saves the EU a massive amount in subsidies it would be handing out were it not for this easier (politically) solution. It is the same situation that has seen the Far East become prosperous, but on a smaller scale, is all.
Globalisation and EU expansionism are 'Market' driven ventures, the development of new Markets, new sources of labour, an ever growing and BIGGER market. Africa next!

Tigger

Dec 15 2014, 08:38 PM

On this occasion I respect your point of view but I cannot agree that we have to cut our nose off to spite our faces by leaving the EU, until the UK itself bucks it's ideas up and restricts employers from gorging on imported labour my fear is that cheap labour will simply be sourced from even less wealthy nations post exit.

Reform the labour and jobs market otherwise the nationalism will quickly transform in to racism. Other European nations have managed this reform so why can't we?

And if anyone else feels like pointing out that a tiny percentage of right wing nutters in Europe share these concerns then don't bother, it's a tiny percentage, remember?