Brexit

[lwbnick]

It saddens me that there seem to be an attitude that UK born workers seem to be given the label that a disproportionate number of them are work shy benefit claimants whereas immigrants are hard working non benefit claiming workers.

Trouble is the media propaganda is that every British person under the age of 30 is a dole slacker living in a council house smoking weed and watching daytime tv.

Reality is that the young have a really hard time, low wages, no proper housing, none of the workplace rights they should have - whole lost generation growing up angry.

Same media like to pretend all immigrants are just here for the freebies and the ability to rob the Daily Mail reading elderly.

 

[LostKiwi]

It saddens me that there seem to be an attitude that UK born workers seem to be given the label that a disproportionate number of them are work shy benefit claimants whereas immigrants are hard working non benefit claiming workers.

Whilst its true that most of our UK born people of employable age are good workers the usual rhetoric about immigrants being here for the freebies obscures the simple facts that more of our own population are on benefits (percentage wise) than immigrants (according to an LSE study 43% less likely), and that immigrants from the EU (who are entitled after 3 months to claim benefits) are less likely to be on benefits than those who are not from EU nations.

Studies I've found online suggest the EU immigrants are a nett benefit not just to GDP but also to employment as the money they spend here creates more jobs.

 

[JBell]

You heard what she asked for last time, right? Two frigates, three OPVs, two squadrons of Typhoons, a wing of rotary air and 8 inf bn plus support arms.

We should have said yes, then bought Scotland again three years later when the money to run just that lot ran out.

I don't think I have ever heard such staggering bull**** from a leader (even Blair).

She is utterly deluded and on such a massive power trip it is untrue.

The Scots voted to stay and because she disagrees with the decision of the majority she wants round 2 using BREXIT as an excuse.

Let them go and wait 6 months before they go bankrupt

 

[malcolm E53 AMG]

I think Sturgeon is bluffing and I'm sure May will call her bluff, economically Scotland is not sustainable, we know it, even the EU know it, but unfortunately she and her close cohorts are deluded by misplaced patriotic nonsense

Hopefully those that live in Scotland will soon realise that they are being sold a pup by the SNP, on the one hand they want Independence and with the other they are willing to give Sovereignty away to the EU and to make things worse the EU don't want fragmentation of states which leaves the Scots between a rock and a hard place

What we are witnessing is a turning point in the popularity of the SNP, they now have no one else to blame for the state of home affairs, there is no other major party influence at Holyrood, Sturgeon stands on very thin ice and is out of her depth

 

[M80]

I don't think I have ever heard such staggering bull**** from a leader (even Blair).

She is utterly deluded and on such a massive power trip it is untrue.

The Scots voted to stay and because she disagrees with the decision of the majority she wants round 2 using BREXIT as an excuse.

Let them go and wait 6 months before they go bankrupt

The bitch is anti UK. Her strategy is to make things more difficult for London rather than just to gain more for Scotland.

TM says no to another referendum. The Scots (and I am generalising) will hate the English for saying no to them. There will be a greater uprising because of it. The call for what they have been denied will get louder.

TM says yes. That now weakens our position regarding Brexit negotiations. There is then further in fighting within the UK. There is more of the unknown when unity is what is better to go forward.

The eu have already said no to negotiation with Scotland until after we leave and they are independent, which has surprised me. They are then said to be at the back of the queue.
Their potential revenues are down and she pushes to alienate their strongest ally.

I could understand their desire for their 1st referendum but as it wasn't Camerons place to promise them we would remain in the eu they took their chance when they did have choice, unlike the rest of the UK.

They have already been given so much power by London I fail to see what more she hopes to gain in the real world.

There are a little more than 8% of UK's population in Scotland that's not enough to deserve the consideration she battles for.

 

[geraldrobins]

Trouble is the media propaganda is that every British person under the age of 30 is a dole slacker living in a council house smoking weed and watching daytime tv.

Reality is that the young have a really hard time, low wages, no proper housing, none of the workplace rights they should have - whole lost generation growing up angry.

Same media like to pretend all immigrants are just here for the freebies and the ability to rob the Daily Mail reading elderly.

I think your version of reality is also a generalisation and not applicable to all young people of a certain generation. Some have good jobs and their own homes.
But I agree its difficult but also they expect more nowadays.

 

[M80]

Studies I've found online suggest the EU immigrants are a nett benefit not just to GDP but also to employment as the money they spend here creates more jobs.

Which nett. Whenever these statements are made, that is that immigrants provide a nett of 7 or 8 billion to our economy, it is a very simple view.

Remove 13% (and I don't advocate removal as I've said in my previous post) of the traffic from our roads and railways and everything flows easier. There are less traffic jams, less accidents and less repairs required. Then of course less new transport link required for the future. Here I can see savings and efficiencies.

That is just one example and while it is very easy to recognise the valued contribution (I believe by the majority) of immigrants there is a similar situation with the rest of our infrastructure of higher costs and unmanageable loadings.

My point of my earlier post was that general population of the UK represents a loading on the economy. There isn't a nett benefit otherwise our national debt wouldn't be growing.
I see the point made that less people here would mean a greater share for those remaining, but that isn't of any value as if we are to take more in the debt will grow for all. Our individual share will grow anyway.

Then there is the principle that the young are needed to work and pay for the increasing aged portion of the population. That of course sounds good till those young get old and we see that another can has been kicked down the road.
More intelligent would be to introduce reduced birth rate incentives so that the future has more chance of being managed, for our young.

 

[Frontstep]

Presumably you have proof of your statements?

Pretty much every report I've seen says that immigrants EU and non-EU claim less benefits as a percentage of the population than home grown work dodgers. We'd be better off dealing with the 'entitled' local work shy first - shall we start with compulsory deportation to Australia for anyone out of work for 5 years - oh hang on, that's not a punishment anymore is it?

Even more to the point EU immigrants take less out of the system than Non-EU immigrants (you know - the ones that don't have access to benefits as part of EU membership that we've been able to control for years, except the marvellous Mrs May couldn't!).


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.ne...they-claim-there-problem-and-what-does-pm?amp

https://fullfact.org/immigration/migration-and-welfare-benefits/

As usual you dive on my posts with your blind zeal without thinking or even reading it seems, no wonder you voted remain.

My first line;

"I can't wait for control over our borders then all the decent hardworking migrants of whom I have indirectly employed many are not lumped in with the deadbeats who come"

If you went back through my posts at 5212 I wrote;

Immigration is great when its controlled.

I suggest we swap ten British layabouts for one good migrant not sure who would want them though perhaps we would have to provide a "dowry"

Its hardly anti migrant is it ?
all I ask for is border control so that the hard workers can come, be welcomed and have decent facilities.

The present free for all system plainly doesn't work.

 

[Frontstep]

There is another side to the migrant contribution debate that is best expressed as SOME migrants make a good and worthwhile contribution to the UK both financially and culturally.
The figures from migration watch show a negative contribution but I am sure with some control over immigration we can turn that round.


" Overall, migrants in the UK have been, and continue to be, a net fiscal cost to the UK Exchequer. Only recent migrants from the EU14 have made a net positive fiscal contribution. Immigration has not been shown to have any significant impact, either positive or negative, on GDP per capita, a key measure of economic performance. There is therefore, no economic case for mass immigration on the present scale"

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/386

 

[LostKiwi]

The eu have already said no to negotiation with Scotland until after we leave and they are independent, which has surprised me.

They can't negotiate with 'Scotland' as Scotland is not a legal entity.
It would be like negotiating with Yorkshire in that respect.

In order for Scotland to negotiate with the EU first it would need to leave the UK and establish itself as a separate country with the legal right to negotiate its own treaties.
Once thats happened Scotland would gain the legal right to negotiate with the EU but they would need to start at the beginning of the EU joining process.
In the interim that would leave them no better off than being in the UK at present with the exception of having gained sovereignty and control of their borders (sound familiar?).

As for Scotland not being viable as a country thats another question.

 

[LostKiwi]

" Overall, migrants in the UK have been, and continue to be, a net fiscal cost to the UK Exchequer. Only recent migrants from the EU14 have made a net positive fiscal contribution. Immigration has not been shown to have any significant impact, either positive or negative, on GDP per capita, a key measure of economic performance. There is therefore, no economic case for mass immigration on the present scale"

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/386

Nice contradiction of your post #5120.

Let me get this straight...
The EU migrants from the EU14 (who we can't 'control') make a nett positive fiscal contribution.
The non-EU migrants (who we can control) make a nett negative fiscal contribution.

So...
Rather than control the ones who make a nett negative fiscal contribution better we act against the ones who do?

Perfect sense to me....

 

[M80]

They can't negotiate with 'Scotland' as Scotland is not a legal entity.
It would be like negotiating with Yorkshire in that respect.

In order for Scotland to negotiate with the EU first it would need to leave the UK and establish itself as a separate country with the legal right to negotiate its own treaties.
Once thats happened Scotland would gain the legal right to negotiate with the EU but they would need to start at the beginning of the EU joining process.
In the interim that would leave them no better off than being in the UK at present with the exception of having gained sovereignty and control of their borders (sound familiar?).

As for Scotland not being viable as a country thats another question.

Yes, we agree then.

 

[Craiglxviii]

They can't negotiate with 'Scotland' as Scotland is not a legal entity.
It would be like negotiating with Yorkshire in that respect.

In order for Scotland to negotiate with the EU first it would need to leave the UK and establish itself as a separate country with the legal right to negotiate its own treaties.
Once thats happened Scotland would gain the legal right to negotiate with the EU but they would need to start at the beginning of the EU joining process.
In the interim that would leave them no better off than being in the UK at present with the exception of having gained sovereignty and control of their borders (sound familiar?).

As for Scotland not being viable as a country thats another question.

I wonder if Yorkshire would be viable as a country? It's as sensible a suggestion as what the SNP are proposing. The populations are almost identical; both have been/ are homes of heavy industry and entrepreneurial spirit. One has a far superior road and rail infrastructure than the other. Hmmmm... interesting thought. Confederated States of Yorkshire?

 

[LostKiwi]

I wonder if Yorkshire would be viable as a country? It's as sensible a suggestion as what the SNP are proposing. The populations are almost identical; both have been/ are homes of heavy industry and entrepreneurial spirit. One has a far superior road and rail infrastructure than the other. Hmmmm... interesting thought. Confederated States of Yorkshire?

Scots are far more entrepreneurial though....

Look at the range of Scottish exports - oil, whisky, shortbread, haggis, deep fried mars bars (just who would have thought of that one?)....

Yorkshire folk are far too sensible....

 

[Craiglxviii]

Scots are far more entrepreneurial though....

Look at the range of Scottish exports - oil, whisky, shortbread, haggis, deep fried mars bars (just who would have thought of that one?)....

Yorkshire folk are far too sensible....

Cats eyes, lighthouses, professional association football, flush toilets, steam locomotives and Marks & Spencer.

I think they have entrepreneurship in hand...

 

[JBell]

Cats eyes, lighthouses, professional association football, flush toilets, steam locomotives and Marks & Spencer.

Rhubarb, flat caps, cobbled streets, Yorkshire puddings, George Cayley (the father of flight)

 

[Craiglxviii]

Rhubarb, flat caps, cobbled streets, Yorkshire puddings, George Cayley (the father of flight)

And don't forget the first recorded mass adoption of the apostrophe in t' speech.

 

[M80]

Rhubarb, flat caps, cobbled streets, Yorkshire puddings, George Cayley (the father of flight)

and self sealing trouser pockets. They must be as the Yorkshire lad I drink with has trouble getting his hand in them to buy a round.

 

[JBell]

And don't forget the first recorded mass adoption of the apostrophe in t' speech.

I am sure that is racist and bordering on offensive enough ;-)

 

[LostKiwi]

and self sealing trouser pockets. They must be as the Yorkshire lad I drink with has trouble getting his hand in them to buy a round.

I was always told a Scotsman was a Yorkshireman with a spending problem!