How many Romanian/Bulgarian migrants are you predicting?

[blindswelledrat]

porridge said:

I want our young to be just as flexible and move for jobs around the UK (as they already do), but I do not want them to to be forced to live 10 to a flat in-order to compete with these immigrants. We are not a 3rd world country and do not want to introduce such living standards as the norm.
]

Bear in mind the ones living 10 to a flat are sending half their MW salary home. Its not because they have to. You seem to have forgotent that.
Back in the real world minimum wage amounts to benefits more or less, so they just carry on doing whatever they are now. It might need tweaking so nobody is worse off on minimum wage than they were on benefits but again, that's just policy detail and ignoring the point yet again, that if we got them all working, immigration would be no issue.

[blindswelledrat]

mrpurple said:

How about the EU setting the levels for all benefits?

For example set levels of payment that ALL members have to pay and setting out directly the criteria for who receives them. That way people that rely on benefits will migrate to the country where the cost of living is the lowest perhaps?

Just a thought?

Its not actually a bad idea, but conversely the general feeling is that we want Europe to have less of a say in what we do.
It's just us that's the problem. We have the most generous system in Europe and it doesn't make sense as to why

[Mrr T]

porridge said:

Many young men come over alone and live 10 to a flat (at which point the cost of living is not 6-8 times the UK) and send money back home.

Your evidence for this is a mate down the pub I assume.

First fact you have wrong on. The data from the immigration post the last EU enlargement is the migrants are almost equally women as men.

Will they live 10 to a house, well again that depends on the size of the house. Once again you seem to know nothing about the subject and just make it up. You might think Landlords are evil scum who want to stuff a rental property with as many as they can. The truth is you cannot risk renting to som one if you think they will bring in others. Its very easy for a person living in a property but not on the lease to get property rights. You really, really do not want that to happen. You can rent to multiple tenants but you then need a licence from the local authority. Fines for breaching the licence are up to £20k.

Again I will agree people will sometimes over crowd allowing a friend who has recently arrived to sleep on the floor for a few days but there is no evidence of long term over occupancy.

As for sending money home, I am sure some do, but I am also sure many do not. Again what evidence do you have.

[Mrr T]

WinstonWolf said:

You know precisely what I mean, I'll give you the benefit of intelligence for now. They call themselves supermarkets but basically they are shops that sell cheap alcohol, the patrons stand around outside drinking and the area degenerates over time.

As I said, I'll take a picture next time I'm there to show how the area has changed.

You mean like ASDA who also sell cheap alcohol.

All areas change some for the better some for the worst.

[WinstonWolf]

Mrr T said:

porridge said:

Many young men come over alone and live 10 to a flat (at which point the cost of living is not 6-8 times the UK) and send money back home.

Your evidence for this is a mate down the pub I assume.

First fact you have wrong on. The data from the immigration post the last EU enlargement is the migrants are almost equally women as men.

Will they live 10 to a house, well again that depends on the size of the house. Once again you seem to know nothing about the subject and just make it up. You might think Landlords are evil scum who want to stuff a rental property with as many as they can. The truth is you cannot risk renting to som one if you think they will bring in others. Its very easy for a person living in a property but not on the lease to get property rights. You really, really do not want that to happen. You can rent to multiple tenants but you then need a licence from the local authority. Fines for breaching the licence are up to £20k.

Again I will agree people will sometimes over crowd allowing a friend who has recently arrived to sleep on the floor for a few days but there is no evidence of long term over occupancy.

As for sending money home, I am sure some do, but I am also sure many do not. Again what evidence do you have.

My OH is a post office manager, currently Lithuania/Latvia are their top destination for Moneygram transfers, previously it was Poland but that's dropped off now.

The house next door is currently a rental property, the first set of tenants numbered 8/10, all being dropped off and picked up by a minibus for factory work.

Fortunately they have now moved out and there's three or four Eastern Europeans next door who are perfect neighbours. You never hear them, there's always fresh flowers at the window and they nod etc as they come and go.

This is not from 'a mate down the pub' it's a real world example for you.

[WinstonWolf]

Mrr T said:

WinstonWolf said:

You know precisely what I mean, I'll give you the benefit of intelligence for now. They call themselves supermarkets but basically they are shops that sell cheap alcohol, the patrons stand around outside drinking and the area degenerates over time.

As I said, I'll take a picture next time I'm there to show how the area has changed.

You mean like ASDA who also sell cheap alcohol.

All areas change some for the better some for the worst.

No, no I don't. In this case this is one of the areas that has changed for the worse.

[mrpurple]

blindswelledrat said:

mrpurple said:

How about the EU setting the levels for all benefits?

For example set levels of payment that ALL members have to pay and setting out directly the criteria for who receives them. That way people that rely on benefits will migrate to the country where the cost of living is the lowest perhaps?

Just a thought?

Its not actually a bad idea, but conversely the general feeling is that we want Europe to have less of a say in what we do.
It's just us that's the problem. We have the most generous system in Europe and it doesn't make sense as to why

I am a Kipper and genuinely think we should not be governed by Brussels at all but,but playing devil's advocate if I may, if we can't get out then damage limitation may be the way forward....ergo harmonization of everything, lock stock and barrel would solve a lot of things would it not? could hardly be called discriminatory for that could I?

[porridge]

Mrr T said:

Its all fine

I used to be like you a year ago, met educated Eastern Europeans at work, tried the latest Polish deli, sold a car to a Lithuanian car enthusiast, noticed the 8am-8pm the loft conversion guys worked across the road.

Then I started looking into the bigger picture and saw that the UK borders are open unconditionally and we have no control over who comes in, and it is causing a lot of issues which could be solved with some basic common-sense policies which the politicians and organisations like the BBC refused to believe (and are now lining up to apologise for as per Nick Robinson, Jack Straw and so on) .

Rather than saying what is your evidence and asking to be spoon fed, go out there and find out. Visit an area which has experienced change, read what councils, NHS staff and headmistresses have stated in public, read what the many exploited immigrants who were misled into the UK have to say.

A lot of information out there.

Edited by porridge on Friday 10th January 16:27

[blindswelledrat]

mrpurple said:

I am a Kipper and genuinely think we should not be governed by Brussels at all but,but playing devil's advocate if I may, if we can't get out then damage limitation may be the way forward....ergo harmonization of everything, lock stock and barrel would solve a lot of things would it not? could hardly be called discriminatory for that could I?

Not at all. Like I say, not a bad idea but probably unworkable. How do you harmonize it when cost of living vary so much?
So either a)You would set a flat rate: X Euro for housing and X Euro for unemployment benefit and then all the unemployed would flock tot he poor countries where their money would go much further or b)% of average salary which would make everyone flock to the country where the standard of living was highest ie the richest country per capita.
In either case certain countries would get more than their fair share of claimants.

I think a more workable system would be a rule that all unemployment benefits must be paid in the nation of origin. Benefit migration does not make any sense to me at all. I cant even understand the 'lefty' logic behind it. Why do the rules exist?

[mrpurple]

blindswelledrat said:

mrpurple said:

I am a Kipper and genuinely think we should not be governed by Brussels at all but,but playing devil's advocate if I may, if we can't get out then damage limitation may be the way forward....ergo harmonization of everything, lock stock and barrel would solve a lot of things would it not? could hardly be called discriminatory for that could I?

Not at all. Like I say, not a bad idea but probably unworkable. How do you harmonize it when cost of living vary so much?
So either a)You would set a flat rate: X Euro for housing and X Euro for unemployment benefit and then all the unemployed would flock tot he poor countries where their money would go much further or b)% of average salary which would make everyone flock to the country where the standard of living was highest ie the richest country per capita.
In either case certain countries would get more than their fair share of claimants.

I think a more workable system would be a rule that all unemployment benefits must be paid in the nation of origin. Benefit migration does not make any sense to me at all. I cant even understand the 'lefty' logic behind it. Why do the rules exist?

yes I can see what you are saying but if, for example, unemployment benefit rate was set at the same rate across the EU ( X Euros), people from say Romania would stay where they were, in fact some of the UK unemployed might go there?

[Justayellowbadge]

blindswelledrat said:

Not at all. Like I say, not a bad idea but probably unworkable. How do you harmonize it when cost of living vary so much?
So either a)You would set a flat rate: X Euro for housing and X Euro for unemployment benefit and then all the unemployed would flock tot he poor countries where their money would go much further or b)% of average salary which would make everyone flock to the country where the standard of living was highest ie the richest country per capita.
In either case certain countries would get more than their fair share of claimants.

I think a more workable system would be a rule that all unemployment benefits must be paid in the nation of origin. Benefit migration does not make any sense to me at all. I cant even understand the 'lefty' logic behind it. Why do the rules exist?

Are we not in a situation where certain countries receive a disproportionate number of claimants?

[blindswelledrat]

Justayellowbadge said:

Are we not in a situation where certain countries receive a disproportionate number of claimants?

Yes, particularly us, but that is a problem of our own making i.e. our government has created the most generous system whilst agreeing to the EU rules. Effectively we have chosen this problem. I don't quite understand who the "we" is in that sentence, that said.

[blindswelledrat]

mrpurple said:

yes I can see what you are saying but if, for example, unemployment benefit rate was set at the same rate across the EU ( X Euros), people from say Romania would stay where they were, in fact some of the UK unemployed might go there?

Yes, half the permanent unemployed in Europe would go there which is just swapping one problem for another, not to mention the fact that they couldn't afford it. Unless a central Eurpean fund paid for it perhaps. Maybe that is a solution. Make the X Euros benefit too low to live in more expensive countries and affordable in cheaper countries.
NOw all we have to do is convince the voting public that its a good idea to hand even more powers to Europe.

[Kermit power]

porridge said:

Yes, I know and do not need to visit that to know... but you are comparing like for like?

Many young men come over alone and live 10 to a flat (at which point the cost of living is not 6-8 times the UK) and send money back home. It is the same as occurred in the 70s & 80s, poor immigrants will always squeeze into a property and make enough to go back home much wealthier or establish themselves here.

I want our young to be just as flexible and move for jobs around the UK (as they already do), but I do not want them to to be forced to live 10 to a flat in-order to compete with these immigrants. We are not a 3rd world country and do not want to introduce such living standards as the norm.

Oh good lord! How do you think we got to be a first world country in the first place?

We conquered a third of the planet so that we could plunder its resources and got a massive head start thanks to the industrial revolution, but we still had to do it on the backs of the working classes living two or more families to a room in the worst cases, and working from primary school age until they dropped. That fact might not be palatable, but maths is dispassionate.

If our great great great (etc) grandparents had decided they were only going to work in the mills and pits 5 days a week with paid holidays, a nice house per family and a pension from the age of 60/65, we would've never become a first world country in the first place, because we would've been too uncompetitive to sustain our position back then, so what makes it any different today?

If our ancestors wanted something more, they had no choice but to work for it. Unfortunately, our parents' & grandparents' generations decided (understandably) after two world wars that enough was enough, and the entitlement culture was born.

You say that you don't want our young people to be forced to live 10 to a flat to compete. Who is going to pay for that? The money has to come from somewhere!

People in this country are quite simply not prepared to "Buy British" for the sake of it. Did you pay 5 times as much to buy a British TV or British made Jeans the last time you bought them so that young people could keep making TVs and jeans in this country without living 10 to a flat, or did you say "Sod that" and buy the cheap goods made in China, Vietnam, the Philippines and the like?

How about your mum, or your gran, or whatever the eldest generation still alive in your family is? Do you want her living in a filthy nursing home once you're unable to care for her yourself because you can't afford a nice, clean home where they employ care assistants with their own flats, or would you prefer her to be looked after by Romanian or Bulgarian care assistants at a price you can afford because they're living 10 to a flat?

How about your own kids, assuming you have kids. Do you want to keep pushing their futures further and further into an unsustainable level of debt so that you can pay for your peers to have a family in a nice flat of their own even though they can't afford it, or do you want to leave your kids with a future that might be sustainable for them because we haven't forced others to live a life which is sustainable now?

The simple fact of life is this. If your work only generates a margin of £5 per hour for your employer, your employer cannot afford to pay you £10 per hour, but in effect this is exactly what the country is trying to do with housing benefit, working tax credits and the like. We're trying to pay people £10 for generating £5, and it's unsustainable.

I fully accept that uncontrolled immigration has made life worse for many of the poorest in our society, but we wouldn't be living in a Utopian land of milk and honey if we'd refused them entry - we'd just be even further down the road to being totally, completely and utterly fked at a national level, and if or when that does eventually happen, having people living 10 to a flat will seem like a luxury!

[speedy_thrills]

The surprising thing about the EU is how little human migration has actually taken place. The rates seem much lower than many developed countries with closed borders, extensive immigration processes and passport controls.

Foreign born population comprises some 12% of the UK, Germany and France's population. By way of comparison 14% of Spain and the US, 20% of Canada's, more than 25% of Australia and New Zealand's population. Regarding immigration the UK doesn't appear exceptionally attractive by any means among developed nations.

[voyds9]

2354519y said:

Everybody assumes that eastern europeans automatically go on welfare and " drain" the NHS, whatever that is. Working on the frontline of the nhs i hardly ever see any young poles or other Slavic peoples. The majority of our workload is elderly/middle aged native British eople. Comprising mostly people with heart disease or diabetes, or musculoskeletal problems or asthmatics.

That's strange as I thought the rate of heart disease was 3x as high in Pakistanis men than the UK average

And diabetes 6x the UK national average.

Unless of course by native you mean someone who has lived here for the last 20 years.

[ninjacost]

The only party talking sense on this issue are ukip if you are happy to allow everyone from poverty stricken countries to live here then good luck to you ,im not !

[steveT350C]

ninjacost said:

The only party talking sense on this issue are ukip if you are happy to allow everyone from poverty stricken countries to live here then good luck to you ,im not !

The immigration debate is not about race, colour or religion, it is about numbers of people, integration and need.

UKIP want an immigration policy based on strict controls of what skills we need in the UK, and numbers of said skilled people, be it nurses or plumbers etc.

The UK currently has an immigration policy, EU policy, that discriminates potential immigrants to the UK based on where you come from, not your skill set. It is much harder to move to the UK if you come from India, China etc. this is racist!

This thread title is a red herring.

[mph1977]

porridge said:

Yes, I know and do not need to visit that to know... but you are comparing like for like?

Many young men come over alone and live 10 to a flat (at which point the cost of living is not 6-8 times the UK) and send money back home. It is the same as occurred in the 70s & 80s, poor immigrants will always squeeze into a property and make enough to go back home much wealthier or establish themselves here.

I want our young to be just as flexible and move for jobs around the UK (as they already do), but I do not want them to to be forced to live 10 to a flat in-order to compete with these immigrants. We are not a 3rd world country and do not want to introduce such living standards as the norm.

part of the problem is the creation of a belief of entitlement among the benefit classes over housing - it is only recently that the under 25/ 30 have only been entitled to a housing benefit rate based on shared accomodation, despite the fact that the vast majority of HE students, Single military personnel and 'young professionals' live in shared accomodation

[porridge]

mph1977 said:

porridge said:

Yes, I know and do not need to visit that to know... but you are comparing like for like?

Many young men come over alone and live 10 to a flat (at which point the cost of living is not 6-8 times the UK) and send money back home. It is the same as occurred in the 70s & 80s, poor immigrants will always squeeze into a property and make enough to go back home much wealthier or establish themselves here.

I want our young to be just as flexible and move for jobs around the UK (as they already do), but I do not want them to to be forced to live 10 to a flat in-order to compete with these immigrants. We are not a 3rd world country and do not want to introduce such living standards as the norm.

part of the problem is the creation of a belief of entitlement among the benefit classes over housing - it is only recently that the under 25/ 30 have only been entitled to a housing benefit rate based on shared accomodation, despite the fact that the vast majority of HE students, Single military personnel and 'young professionals' live in shared accomodation

Those Young professionals and HE students used to live together and then as the career progressed buy a home and start a family. Now this is harder with the student debt and ongoing rise in cost of basic living i.e. cost of rent and bills and excluding any luxuries as wages have not kept pace with inflation.

It is one thing to see something as a stepping stone to a better life, and another to see no future. We want more young professionals and HE students to be having babies and earlier rather than what seems to be currently the case- low end popping them out and the professionals either leaving it later (increasing chance of complications/disabilities) or not having any.