Brexit (Old)

Originally Posted by nomadking

Eg There was a TV programme where a Czech Roma couple had arrived in Rotherham with TWENTY-TWO of their children and grandchildren. Only one of them had a job. So they, along with an estimated 6,000 other Czech Roma just in Rotherham had to be housed, funded with benefits etc. The fallacy is that enough of the 3m EU residents actually contribute.

A TV programme is probably not the best representative sample of EU migrants. You certainly can't use it to declare it a 'fallacy' that 'enough contribute'.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Eg There was a TV programme where a Czech Roma couple had arrived in Rotherham with TWENTY-TWO of their children and grandchildren. Only one of them had a job. So they, along with an estimated 6,000 other Czech Roma just in Rotherham had to be housed, funded with benefits etc. The fallacy is that enough of the 3m EU residents actually contribute.

So is the stock in all the Eastern European shops produced in the UK?

Not sure where all these assumptions are coming from about all these people being funded and housed. That's not the case.
http://theconversation.com/when-brit...-the-law-86896

The factual situation is that over their lifetime, the UK makes a surplus from EU citizens working here whilst UK citizens working here just pay their way.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Eg There was a TV programme where a Czech Roma couple had arrived in Rotherham with TWENTY-TWO of their children and grandchildren. Only one of them had a job. So they, along with an estimated 6,000 other Czech Roma just in Rotherham had to be housed, funded with benefits etc. The fallacy is that enough of the 3m EU residents actually contribute.



So is the stock in all the Eastern European shops produced in the UK?

Indeed.

Just because an immigrant is working, and may possibly be paying tax, doesn't mean that they won't be claiming various benefits and availing themselves of our free healthcare system, maternity care, education etc. They will also need somewhere to live and will probably be taking a scarce home from rented stock.

If they take a job that someone here could have obtained, any benefits to us by them coming here are negated because the person who didn't get the job remains on benefits.

Having said that, at least the ones who work (in legitimate jobs that is), are making an effort to contribute as opposed to the likes of those who live in London subways and openly defecate outdoors. That's when they aren't begging/stealing/mugging etc.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Eg There was a TV programme where a Czech Roma couple had arrived in Rotherham with TWENTY-TWO of their children and grandchildren. Only one of them had a job. So they, along with an estimated 6,000 other Czech Roma just in Rotherham had to be housed, funded with benefits etc. The fallacy is that enough of the 3m EU residents actually contribute.



So is the stock in all the Eastern European shops produced in the UK?

There’s one Polish shop in my town, no bigger than a local grocery store. There’s a McDonalds, a KFC, a Pizza Hut, a subway and countless other shops. Relative to all consumer spending these stores will be small.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not sure where all these assumptions are coming from about all these people being funded and housed. That's not the case.
http://theconversation.com/when-brit...-the-law-86896

The factual situation is that over their lifetime, the UK makes a surplus from EU citizens working here whilst UK citizens working here just pay their way.

I think that the way this is worked out is flawed and, even if it was shown to be correct, there are negative issues not directly related to money.

If an immigrant takes a job that would have gone to a UK resident, the extended benefit payments of the other party must be taken into consideration.

How much are public services having to spend on interpreters because they don't speak English?

How much are they artificially pushing up house prices and rents?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Indeed.

Just because an immigrant is working, and may possibly be paying tax, doesn't mean that they won't be claiming various benefits and availing themselves of our free healthcare system, maternity care, education etc. They will also need somewhere to live and will probably be taking a scarce home from rented stock.

If they take a job that someone here could have obtained, any benefits to us by them coming here are negated because the person who didn't get the job remains on benefits.

Having said that, at least the ones who work (in legitimate jobs that is), are making an effort to contribute as opposed to the likes of those who live in London subways and openly defecate outdoors. That's when they aren't begging/stealing/mugging etc.

Massive generalisations going on there. Why not just do away with the welfare state as it’s obviously open to systematic abuse from English people too. Imagine having the audacity to pay tax and expect an NHS hospital to help deliver your baby.

---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------

Regarding social housing I’m sure we used to have plenty but something happened along the way...

[denphone]

Originally Posted by pip08456

So the PM gets a free pass on telling a lie to the to the nation whereas the leave campaign got pilloried for even suggesting it by those who can't tell the difference between a suggestion and a promise?

l am talking about politicians on the whole whatever side they are on pip.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Are you saying that the current Tory government is communist?

You're being silly again.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by denphone

l am talking about politicians on the whole whatever side they are on pip.

Doesn't answer the question den.

I await any remainer answering it considering the amount said about the bus in this and previous threads.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There is a limit, jfman. You can't just keep taking more people in. We are a small country and we don't need a further increase in our population.

Even if those people are vital Drs, nurses and carers we don't have enough of for our ageing population ?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I think that the way this is worked out is flawed and, even if it was shown to be correct, there are negative issues not directly related to money.

If an immigrant takes a job that would have gone to a UK resident, the extended benefit payments of the other party must be taken into consideration.

How much are public services having to spend on interpreters because they don't speak English?

How much are they artificially pushing up house prices and rents?

If the immigrant can’t speak English how are they beating unemployed English people into the jobs?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

You still haven’t cited an example of EU legislation making business worse off. It’s just the usual generic waffle about trade deals (as yet undefined) and a better future (maybe).

That’s a bit rich from someone who openly admits they can’t be bothered to back up their arguments with citations and links?

But. Just for arguments sake

https://openeurope.org.uk/intelligen...u-regulations/

Back to the glory days of Empire with the Commonwealth trade deals.

You seem to bang on an a hell of a lot about the empire, are you a secret imperialist?

Originally Posted by pip08456

Doesn't answer the question den.

I await any remainer answering it considering the amount said about the bus in this and previous threads.

It's obviously a lie. There are no economic projections in which we're richer after Brexit.

[Mr K]

50,000 nursing vacancies.... We need immigration, and whether intended or not, the whole Brexit shambles is making other countries more attractive to the people we need.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

That’s a bit rich from someone who openly admits they can’t be bothered to back up their arguments with citations and links?

But. Just for arguments sake

https://openeurope.org.uk/intelligen...u-regulations/



You seem to bang on an a hell of a lot about the empire, are you a secret imperialist?

I’d love you to source where I “openly admit” your claim in the first sentence.

I’m quite interested in your link though. Essentially, there are costs adhering to standards and regulations - these aren’t uniquely an EU feature. I’ve quoted one paragraph:

EU regulation can come with benefits, particularly if it helps facilitate trade across the single market. It would also be wrong to assume that, if the UK were to leave the EU, the costs described above would disappear overnight. The reality is that the UK would be likely to keep a good number of these laws in part or in full, such as rules on anti-discrimination, some health and safety rules, food safety standards, and so forth. At the same time, the UK would no longer benefit from many of the EU rules that give British business access to European markets – such as ‘passporting rules’ for financial firms.

So again can anyone tell me a business suggestion that isn’t viable today but will be viable on 30th March?

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

50,000 nursing vacancies.... We need immigration, and whether intended or not, the whole Brexit shambles is making other countries more attractive to the people we need.

Why aren’t our 3 million unemployed queuing up for these jobs? After all, every EU national in a job is literally grabbing it from the hands of a Brit desperate to do it.