UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[PRTVR]

FredClogs said:

Axionknight said:

Are you saying that immigration IS a prerequisite of a healthy thriving economy?

I'll say that, yes. Trade of goods and services inherently means trade in skills and human labour, you can't decouple the two. Well you can but you shouldn't for economic and cultural reasons.

South Korea appears to manage OK, economically and I do not see how culturally there could be a problem, unless you subscribe to the idea of multiculturalism and there is no other way forward.

[FredClogs]

PRTVR said:

The looming health care crisis cannot be cured by immigration, eventually the immigrants get old and need looking after, all you are doing is putting off the problem and making it worse, I witnessed a a east European couple, pushing around what appeared to be their parents in NHS wheelchairs, we could be making the problem worse not better.

So you want to get rid of old people, sick people, poor people and foreign people; will there be anyone left in this utopia you wish to construct?

You do know that the NHS is the largest employer of expatriated workers from other countries to this, in fact without them our NHS would have been up the creak decades ago.

[Strawman]

PRTVR said:

FredClogs said:

Axionknight said:

Are you saying that immigration IS a prerequisite of a healthy thriving economy?

I'll say that, yes. Trade of goods and services inherently means trade in skills and human labour, you can't decouple the two. Well you can but you shouldn't for economic and cultural reasons.

South Korea appears to manage OK, economically and I do not see how culturally there could be a problem, unless you subscribe to the idea of multiculturalism and there is no other way forward.

How is South Korea where 3% of the population are foreign nationals an example of an immigration free country?

[PRTVR]

FredClogs said:

PRTVR said:

The looming health care crisis cannot be cured by immigration, eventually the immigrants get old and need looking after, all you are doing is putting off the problem and making it worse, I witnessed a a east European couple, pushing around what appeared to be their parents in NHS wheelchairs, we could be making the problem worse not better.

So you want to get rid of old people, sick people, poor people and foreign people; will there be anyone left in this utopia you wish to construct?

You do know that the NHS is the largest employer of expatriated workers from other countries to this, in fact without them our NHS would have been up the creak decades ago.

No I do not want to get rid of the old ( I am old) nor do I want to get rid of the sick as I have just had to go to the doctor ( only a two week wait) and not the foreigners as my family tree shows I originate from France
( the shame ) UKIP has never said that immigration would stop, just that it would be controlled, people we need would still come, I struggle to understand why people cannot understand this.

[PRTVR]

Strawman said:

PRTVR said:

FredClogs said:

Axionknight said:

Are you saying that immigration IS a prerequisite of a healthy thriving economy?

I'll say that, yes. Trade of goods and services inherently means trade in skills and human labour, you can't decouple the two. Well you can but you shouldn't for economic and cultural reasons.

South Korea appears to manage OK, economically and I do not see how culturally there could be a problem, unless you subscribe to the idea of multiculturalism and there is no other way forward.

How is South Korea where 3% of the population are foreign nationals an example of an immigration free country?

I do not think any developed country is immigration free, but the UK is at 12.5% up from 7% in 1998 I think, 3% is minimal.

[Countdown]

Axionknight said:

Strawman said:

PRTVR said:

What of the likes of Japan or South Korea, minimal immigration along with a health economy, immigration is not a prerequisite of a health thriving economy.

Japan that's been in stagflation for over ten years now and has the highest national deficit as a percentage of GDP for any country in the world, worse than Zimbabwe? Japan with it's population decline and looming elderly care crisis?
3% of South Korea's population are foreign residents, about the same as the UK or higher?

Are you saying that immigration IS a prerequisite of a healthy thriving economy?

Depends on the demographic profile of the country. And how much of that demographic is economically productive.

[Strawman]

PRTVR said:

I do not think any developed country is immigration free, but the UK is at 12.5% up from 7% in 1998 I think, 3% is minimal.

The standard figures are "In 2005, the foreign-born population was estimated at 9.1 per cent, compared to a European Union average of 8.6 per cent.[4]" so pretty normal for Europe, this has now increased in the last couple of years which is a sign the UK economy has a demand for workers and part of the advantage of being in the European union, those people can relocate with minimal red tape. You claim there are currently too many because there are fewer in South Korea? You make no sense. 13% of the population is foreign born in the USA.

[s2art]

Strawman said:

PRTVR said:

I do not think any developed country is immigration free, but the UK is at 12.5% up from 7% in 1998 I think, 3% is minimal.

The standard figures are "In 2005, the foreign-born population was estimated at 9.1 per cent, compared to a European Union average of 8.6 per cent.[4]" so pretty normal for Europe, this has now increased in the last couple of years which is a sign the UK economy has a demand for workers and part of the advantage of being in the European union, those people can relocate with minimal red tape. You claim there are currently too many because there are fewer in South Korea? You make no sense. 13% of the population is foreign born in the USA.

The USA, Australia and Canada, amongst other places, are vast and underpopulated. No point comparing the UK to them. I guess Japan would be a close match for the UK (its bigger but a lot of it isnt really habitable).

[Scuffers]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

where have I stated that it was a fact?

where I have used 'facts' I have always backed them up with the source, however, this particular one not a fact, it's a figure I got from searching round and getting the consensus of web-searches.

At the very start of this argument, I was the one that said there are no hard figures/facts to cover almost all of it, for you to come back and now try and pick me up on the numbers is frankly laughable.

Oh, and nice use of the word phobic!

[Scuffers]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

can you not read?

THERE ARE NO HARD FACTS ON ANY OF THIS

is that such a hard concept for you to understand? every figure is an estimate somewhere along the line..

the NHS is not setup to do data collection required to answer this stuff with any real accuracy (and arguably, would you want to pay for the admin to make it so?)

[968]

PRTVR said:

The looming health care crisis cannot be cured by immigration, eventually the immigrants get old and need looking after, all you are doing is putting off the problem and making it worse, I witnessed a a east European couple, pushing around what appeared to be their parents in NHS wheelchairs, we could be making the problem worse not better.

So what if this supposed Eastern European couple were pushing their parents in wheelchairs? Firstly, how do you know where they got them from? Secondly, how do you know what contribution this couple has made to the economy?

[968]

Scuffers said:

can you not read?

THERE ARE NO HARD FACTS ON ANY OF THIS

is that such a hard concept for you to understand? every figure is an estimate somewhere along the line..

the NHS is not setup to do data collection required to answer this stuff with any real accuracy (and arguably, would you want to pay for the admin to make it so?)

So where did you get your 35% figure from then?

Also, why can you not respond to a poster without abusing them?

[Scuffers]

968 said:

So where did you get your 35% figure from then?

already answered that. (I appreciate reading is obviously not one of your strong points...)

968 said:

Also, why can you not respond to a poster without abusing them?

have a guess?

you are just as bad as the other notable idiots on here, you CBA to read, and the attention span of a goldfish, and seem to be totally incapable of understanding quite simple concepts.

I am sure now you will revert to character and bang on about me being some kind of Homophobe?

[NoNeed]

Scuffers said:

968 said:

So where did you get your 35% figure from then?

already answered that. (I appreciate reading is obviously not one of your strong points...)

968 said:

Also, why can you not respond to a poster without abusing them?

have a guess?

you are just as bad as the other notable idiots on here, you CBA to read, and the attention span of a goldfish, and seem to be totally incapable of understanding quite simple concepts.

I am sure now you will revert to character and bang on about me being some kind of Homophobe?

So you can't answer a question without abusing the person asking.

[Scuffers]

NoNeed said:

So you can't answer a question without abusing the person asking.

And there we have it, no sooner said than another one of the idiot's pops up!

Edited by Scuffers on Wednesday 3rd June 15:25

[Disastrous]

Scuffers said:

NoNeed said:

So you can't answer a question without abusing the person asking.

And there we have it, no sooner said than another one of the idiot's pops up!

Edited by Scuffers on Wednesday 3rd June 15:25

And there we have it. No, it seems.

Honestly, between Scuffers' evasive stat-fiction and MGJohn arguing the 'facts' about cash-in-hand work in a fictional scenario just to avoid answering a question, this thread has become farcical.

[Scuffers]

and look!

another one of the stupid-squad!

Keep it up and we will have a full set.

As for me, I don't give two sh*ts what you call me, I actually find it quite funny as it's the very same idiots who accuse me of throwing insults about.

Oh, and just to cover your UKIP supporter slur, remember, that's some 4 Million people you are calling thick, you really think that helps your credibility?

[Scuffers]

Disastrous said:

And there we have it. No, it seems.

Honestly, between Scuffers' evasive stat-fiction and MGJohn arguing the 'facts' about cash-in-hand work in a fictional scenario just to avoid answering a question, this thread has become farcical.

Look, where have I been evasive? I answered the question some 18 ports ago, learn to READ

just because you don't like the answer, does not mean that (1) it's wrong, or (2) I failed to answer it.

seems to me you need to learn the difference between a fact and an opinion.

[968]

Scuffers said:

and look!

another one of the stupid-squad!

Keep it up and we will have a full set.

As for me, I don't give two sh*ts what you call me, I actually find it quite funny as it's the very same idiots who accuse me of throwing insults about.

Oh, and just to cover your UKIP supporter slur, remember, that's some 4 Million people you are calling thick, you really think that helps your credibility?

Thank you for demonstrating, so perfectly, exactly what I have observed. You seem utterly incapable of maintaining a discussion without abusing the person responding to you.

I read with great care what you posted about the 35% and still there's no explanation where this figure has come from, and how it is that you can produce statistics to suit your argument, from thin air, but no one else who responds can possibly be right and you wrong.

[TKF]

Scuffers said:

seems to me you need to learn the difference between a fact and an opinion