EU referendum...THE RESULT...and aftermath...

PatDunne wrote:

Unless you state what you believe to be an optimum number for immigration per year you cannot say whether the UK admits too few or too many.

There is no such thing as too few or too many. There is simply enough.

Just think about, say, one immigrant (Phillipino?) nurse working here.

That nurse has been born abroad. Look at the costs involved in pre-natal care and child birth. All borne (geddit?) by another country. That nurse has then been educated through Primary and Secondary education to an equivalent Tertiary level to enable it to be qualified highly enough to be allowed to nurse in this country.

What is the overall cost of all of that and all of it paid by someone else? I dunno but it is lots. We end up with the finished article right here right now when we need it where we need it and it arrives free of cost.

Ultimately market forces will prevail.The demand for that nurse defines where that nurse goes. It could be here or it could be elsewhere.

If we put similar (by which I mean extra to what we do now) resources into "our own" we could supply British nurses. But we don't. There isn't even the training capacity to do so should we wish to let alone the funding for it unless we either tax more or borrow more and nobody wants that, do they?

As it is for that nurse so it is throughout industry, business, commerce and academia. Everywhere.

There is no such thing as too few or too many. There is simply enough.
How many is 'enough'?

I would have a points system myself such that nurses from the Philippines would be welcomed, Lithuanian rough sleepers would not..

'Ultimately market forces will prevail. The demand for that nurse defines where that nurse goes. It could be here or it could be elsewhere'.

Capitalism neatly defined.


shit deal for the taxpayers of the Philippines I have to say, still global village and all that...

How about Lithuanian nurses that sleep rough?

they are obviously unable to manage money and this draws into question their medical competence so they would be deported.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

How about Lithuanian nurses that sleep rough?

You've provided the answer... Britain gets to pick and choose. As opposed to being 'foisted upon'...

PatDunne wrote:

shit deal for the taxpayers of the Philippines I have to say, still global village and all that...

Absolutely.

In that sense every immigrant that strengthens us (and they do, mostly) weakens wherever it is that they come from.

In reality nurses such as that notional Phillipino only arrive here from countries where the wages are worse or else they would stay. That means they come from densely populated and developing countries - and are probably non-EU. Exactly the sort of places with awful infra-structures that need every nurse they can find. Obviously we know this and offer some overseas aid in recompense but that overseas aid itself is hugely unpopular with typical UKIP/Brexit types (but then their goals are laughably unrealistic when you consider them in any detail beyond the obvious).

So we could kill all EU immigration and still need the 200,000 (?) non-EU immigrants. And we do need them because market forces dictate that the numbers must be "true" (do you prefer accurate?).

The obvious point here is that some will be EU and some not but wherever they come from gross 30,000 will forever be unachievable unless we are prepared to see a total collapse of everything (not sure i'm allowed to say such a thing - Project Fear and all that).

We are very fortunate to have been born in the UK, We have met the target 0.70% of GDP in foreign aid, few countries have, the USA, Germany and France for example do not, we could all as countries do more.


I voted for the UK to leave the EU.

In reality the best way for us to curb immigration is to make Britain economically weak because immigrants do not want to go to economically weak countries - did immigrants ever rush into Bangladesh? (Apart from the Rohingyas, obvs.)

When that happens unionisation levels fall, rights for workers diminish, wages stagnate, currency is weak, job security falls away and the pull forces that so encourage immigration fall away.

Of course this means the devastation of every facet of society but no matter, eh?, just as long as we have immigration levels below some arbitrary number some dickhead politician has thought the Daily Mail would accept.

I expect Brexit will do the job nicely.

PatDunne wrote:

We are very fortunate to have been born in the UK, We have met the target 0.70% of GDP in foreign aid, few countries have, the USA, Germany and France for example do not, we could all as countries do more.


I voted for the UK to leave the EU.

Really?

I'm shocked.

No need to be shocked,

I'm just a 'typical UKIP/Brexit type'

Or gammon if you prefer? a racist? uneducated? stupid? a fascist?

Pick any label you like.

No need to. You've defined yourself in your own terms already. I certainly haven't made you do so or even instigated such a thing.

I don't think I have ever even used the word "gammon" (until now) so don't lay that on me.

Until now we have have been having a perfectly reasonable discussion and now you start this?

I don't even know you - how could I label you as anything?

And yet again Franny ignores all the arguments he doesn't have a hope in hell of winning and starts to bang the immigration drum again. Not the racism one the anti immigrant one. Don't feed the troll.

PatDunne wrote:

No need to be shocked,

I'm just a 'typical UKIP/Brexit type'

Or gammon if you prefer? a racist? uneducated? stupid? a fascist?

Pick any label you like.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

No need to. You've defined yourself in your own terms already. I certainly haven't made you do so or even instigated such a thing.

No...  But you think it.  You're just too scared to state your conviction.

Did I say you had USED a particular term?


My reality is to aid other countries standards of living and hence wages rise, but consumers expect a two pack of primark t shirts for a fiver, so companies chase the lowest wages. It's a difficult juggling act to achieve without impoverishing ourselves, the developed world consumes too much, has too much, but most will not forsake their consumption in order for the world to be fairer, we are as I say, very lucky to have been born here and not say Chad.... I find it hard to morally justify the expenditure of the earths resources on say football, or the environmental effect of long haul holidays, I'm drinking a decent beer right now, many in the world don't even have clean water.... what to do?

Earwegoagain wrote:

And yet again Franny ignores all the arguments he doesn't have a hope in hell of winning and starts to bang the immigration drum again. Not the racism one the anti immigrant one. Don't feed the troll.

I don't think I have mentioned the r word at all nor have I accused anybody of anything.

I'd be grateful if you could supply me with a list of topics not verboten to me and I'll see if I can comply.

And any advice as to how I can discuss the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] important factor to voters factors regarding Brexit without actually mentioning it or considering its implications would be welcome.

PatDunne wrote:

Did I say you had USED a particular term?


My reality is to aid other countries standards of living and hence wages rise, but consumers expect a two pack of primark t shirts for a fiver, so companies chase the lowest wages. It's a difficult juggling act to achieve without impoverishing ourselves, the developed world consumes too much, has too much, but most will not forsake their consumption in order for the world to be fairer, we are as I say, very lucky to have been born here and not say Chad.... I find it hard to morally justify the expenditure of the earths resources on say football, or the environmental effect of long haul holidays, I'm drinking a decent beer right now, many in the world don't even have clean water.... what to do?

As an individual not much other than enjoy the beer.

Having concerns does not mean you have to live a sackcloth and ashes existence.

You and I are not the problem. It goes far deeper. I'm sure we both sort our recycling appropriately, shop as ethically as we can and so on. Dropping out and living in the woods isn't an option for all 65 million Brits, is it?

It'd kill my mother inside a month for a start.

I never had kids, I'm in credit in a generational sense regarding consumption and environmental damage compared to those that breed.

To make up for it I ride a Harley Davidson, enjoy rock music, drink beer and eat steak, sackcloth does nothing for me darling, nor sleeping in woods (although it's been done).

I do recycle, buy most of my clothes used from ebay, my bike and car are not new, I ponder my air miles and carbon footprint etc etc

Anyway, you've all been a great audience, so until the next time, goodnight from me.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I can't be arsed to look up the actual figures but we currently enjoy around 400,000 as a net immigration figure.

I, Enjoy wouldn't have been my word of choice.

2, Do you think those figures are sustainable over a prolonged period, ie 100 years where, when you figure in the increased birth rate that comes with immigrants the population of this small island would more than double?

They have to be.

It won't be long before our population has over 50% who are retired. Kids born today have a life expectancy of around 100.

Somebody has to do the actual work that will support them (me one day, hopefully) practically and in terms of paying the taxes that give them (and me, hopefully) a pension and "we" are not breeding fast enough "ourselves" to do it.

There's loads of spare capacity for fitting people in. Loads of empty housing, loads of unused (that could be used) land. The problems which exist around supply and demand of services, housing and so on are caused at least as much by our inability to plan and resource them properly as they do from, the far more obvious, strains due to demand.

Back to the NHS: who do you think uses the NHS more if you consider a Polish brickie and my 93 year old mother?

And who is actually fixing my Mum's teeth (a Pakistani) or testing her eyesight (an African)?

Who was the midwife that delivered my son (a West Indian), who was the paediatrician who dealt with him afterwards (an Italian) , where does my dentist come from? (Sweden)...

None of this is new. My son is 20 years old now. Just go up to Derriford and have a look around.

There it all is in microcosm as a pro forma for the whole country.

Except being in the SW we have rather fewer foreigners than they do elsewhere.

This cannot be fixed quickly. It takes years to train a doctor or a dentist. It would take planning of twice that long to implement the investment we need to make it even vaguely possible.

Still we're out next April. Fairy dust, unicorn manure and tubthumping will fix it!!

Except it won't. And nobody who has considered it properly thinks it will.

And if you think it will all come right when we chop immigration back to 30,000 overnight then you are a dickhead. Firstly because it will not and secondly because it'll never happen. Not ever.

Official complaint, that is just outrageous.

PatDunne wrote:

I never had kids, I'm in credit in a generational sense regarding consumption and environmental damage compared to those that breed.

To make up for it I ride a Harley Davidson, enjoy rock music, drink beer and eat steak, sackcloth does nothing for me darling, nor sleeping in woods (although it's been done).  

I do recycle, buy most of my clothes used from ebay, my bike and car are not new, I ponder my air miles and carbon footprint etc etc

Anyway, you've all been a great audience, so until the next time, goodnight from me.  

I've only had the one.

Not enough, is it? There's the heart of it.

Anyway sleep well.

Les Miserable wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I can't be arsed to look up the actual figures but we currently enjoy around 400,000 as a net immigration figure.

I, Enjoy wouldn't have been my word of choice.

2, Do you think those figures are sustainable over a prolonged period, ie 100 years where, when you figure in the increased birth rate that comes with immigrants the population of this small island would more than double?

They have to be.

It won't be long before our population has over 50% who are retired. Kids born today have a life expectancy of around 100.

Somebody has to do the actual work that will support them (me one day, hopefully) practically and in terms of paying the taxes that give them (and me, hopefully) a pension and "we" are not breeding fast enough "ourselves" to do it.

There's loads of spare capacity for fitting people in. Loads of empty housing, loads of unused (that could be used) land. The problems which exist around supply and demand of services, housing and so on are caused at least as much by our inability to plan and resource them properly as they do from, the far more obvious, strains due to demand.

Back to the NHS: who do you think uses the NHS more if you consider a Polish brickie and my 93 year old mother?

And who is actually fixing my Mum's teeth (a Pakistani) or testing her eyesight (an African)?

Who was the midwife that delivered my son (a West Indian), who was the paediatrician who dealt with him afterwards (an Italian) , where does my dentist come from? (Sweden)...

None of this is new. My son is 20 years old now. Just go up to Derriford and have a look around.

There it all is in microcosm as a pro forma for the whole country.

Except being in the SW we have rather fewer foreigners than they do elsewhere.

This cannot be fixed quickly. It takes years to train a doctor or a dentist. It would take planning of twice that long to implement the investment we need to make it even vaguely possible.

Still we're out next April. Fairy dust, unicorn manure and tubthumping will fix it!!

Except it won't. And nobody who has considered it properly thinks it will.

And if you think it will all come right when we chop immigration back to 30,000 overnight then you are a dickhead. Firstly because it will not and secondly because it'll never happen. Not ever.

Official complaint, that is just outrageous.

Very droll.

before I go I do just have to add, the lack of pace in our back four is shocking....

PatDunne wrote:

There is no such thing as too few or too many. There is simply enough.
How many is 'enough'?

I would have a points system myself such that nurses from the Philippines would be welcomed, Lithuanian rough sleepers would not..

There already is a points based system for Nurses. Its called a Tier 2 visa.

You can't remove rough sleepers:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I voted leave, so freedom of movement wouldn't apply, the EU rough sleepers would be returned to burden their own peoples...

PatDunne wrote:

I voted leave, so freedom of movement wouldn't apply, the EU rough sleepers would be returned to burden their own peoples...

How? If Freedom of Movement doesn't apply they would have had to have been granted leave to enter under a different criteria. What criteria would they have been admitted under, and how would rough sleeping being deemed a breach of those criteria?