Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[Jockman]

Mrr T said:

Jockman said:

Mrr T said:

Several posts have said this but how does it work? Are you proposing we require tourist visas for some rEU countries?

If not how do you stop someone entering as a tourist but going to job interviews.

Is the Employer not meant to police this?

So are you going to make it an offence for an employer to have a chat about a job with some one who is not a UK resident?

An Employer can chat to anyone they like. They can have lots and lots of conversations on many occasions. They can even go out for dinner together. Why should this be an offence?

[Dr Jekyll]

Mrr T said:

Murph7355 said:

That is simpler with immigration IMO as you can control it far more simply by refusing access to the country if someone does not have a job.

Several posts have said this but how does it work? Are you proposing we require tourist visas for some rEU countries?

If not how do you stop someone entering as a tourist but going to job interviews.

The same way we do for non EU visitors now. The same way the US and Australians do.

Immigration officers can ask visitors what they intend to do here and what they do for a living. If the answers don't satisfy then check their luggage. Not foolproof but works well enough.

[dbdb]

barryrs said:

jamoor said:

Good news for all concerned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

Personally I think its simply being tabled to ensure the country remains divided.

Maybe the EU are playing a long game, recognising that there is a yawning generation gap in opinion on the EU between older people who want to leave and younger people who are more minded to stay - and positioning themselves to capitalise on this difference in view between old and young voters in the future when demography has 'done its worst'.

[Mrr T]

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

///ajd said:

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

First, where has Farage denied that immigration can be a net gain? Of course we want some immigration, but controlled immigration. Immigrants are not a net gain unless they can earn something like £35K per year, however there are some lower paid jobs that it would be to our advantage to allow lower paid immigrant to fill. Seasonal agricultural workers and carers for examples.
You really need to learn the difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration as your posts on the subject appear unhinged.

Do some research and stop quoting a figure which is rubbish.

Edited by Mrr T on Saturday 10th December 14:07

Dont be stupid. That is the government calculated figure, and it is used for non-EU immigration purposes. It is you who needs to do some research.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17204297

Edited by s2art on Saturday 10th December 14:13

It's an arbitrary figure imposed on non EU immigrants by the government. It has nothing to do with whether an immigrant is a "net gain" or not.

Wrong. Do your research.

I have done. I have also posted a number of times on this thread why the £35k a year figure is rubbish.

[Mrr T]

Dr Jekyll said:

Mrr T said:

Murph7355 said:

That is simpler with immigration IMO as you can control it far more simply by refusing access to the country if someone does not have a job.

Several posts have said this but how does it work? Are you proposing we require tourist visas for some rEU countries?

If not how do you stop someone entering as a tourist but going to job interviews.

The same way we do for non EU visitors now. The same way the US and Australians do.

Immigration officers can ask visitors what they intend to do here and what they do for a living. If the answers don't satisfy then check their luggage. Not foolproof but works well enough.

Your missing the point. There's a big difference depending how easy it is to get a visa. Poster suggested they where happy to let in any one with a job. That is not the case for most entering Australia or the UK from outside the EU.

[barryrs]

Mrr T said:

I have done. I have also posted a number of times on this thread why the £35k a year figure is rubbish.

Apologies for asking you to repeat yourself but I must have missed this.

What benefits and services aren't working immigrants claiming that make them a net contributor at a lower figure?

For example I hear that immigrants are young and don't have as many kids so are less of a drain on education yet my local junior school teaches polish.

[Mrr T]

barryrs said:

Mrr T said:

I have done. I have also posted a number of times on this thread why the £35k a year figure is rubbish.

Apologies for asking you to repeat yourself but I must have missed this.

What benefits and services aren't working immigrants claiming that make them a net contributor at a lower figure?

For example I hear that immigrants are young and don't have as many kids so are less of a drain on education yet my local junior school teaches polish.

The £35k figure is calculated by allocating all costs. So an immigrant is not likely to be drawing a UK pension, they are less likely to be drawing non work benefits, and likely in work benefits as well, most importantly they will be making less than average use of the NHS because of their age. Something like 70% of the NHS budget is to provide care for the over 70's.

Immigrants are younger than the general population when they migrant. However, like us all they get older. Most of the first Polish immigrants will now have been in the UK 7-9 years. Now after working for that time they are having children. Indeed, current birth figures show 2nd highest country of birth for new mother's is Poland.

[Jockman]

Mrr T said:

Immigrants are younger than the general population when they migrant. However, like us all they get older. Most of the first Polish immigrants will now have been in the UK 7-9 years. Now after working for that time they are having children. Indeed, current birth figures show 2nd highest country of birth for new mother's is Poland.

I've been supplying the Polish Community for 37 years. They have been settled here for almost 70 years. Wonderful people.

[don4l]

Mrr T said:

Jockman said:

Mrr T said:

Several posts have said this but how does it work? Are you proposing we require tourist visas for some rEU countries?

If not how do you stop someone entering as a tourist but going to job interviews.

Is the Employer not meant to police this?

So are you going to make it an offence for an employer to have a chat about a job with some one who is not a UK resident?

Employers have a duty to check whether employees have the right to work here.

https://www.gov.uk/penalties-for-employing-illegal...

[s2art]

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

///ajd said:

You fail to realise that:

- immigration is a net benefit, despite what hate filled bile Farage has clogged your brain with, and

Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 10th December 12:38

First, where has Farage denied that immigration can be a net gain? Of course we want some immigration, but controlled immigration. Immigrants are not a net gain unless they can earn something like £35K per year, however there are some lower paid jobs that it would be to our advantage to allow lower paid immigrant to fill. Seasonal agricultural workers and carers for examples.
You really need to learn the difference between controlled and uncontrolled immigration as your posts on the subject appear unhinged.

Do some research and stop quoting a figure which is rubbish.

Edited by Mrr T on Saturday 10th December 14:07

Dont be stupid. That is the government calculated figure, and it is used for non-EU immigration purposes. It is you who needs to do some research.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17204297

Edited by s2art on Saturday 10th December 14:13

It's an arbitrary figure imposed on non EU immigrants by the government. It has nothing to do with whether an immigrant is a "net gain" or not.

Wrong. Do your research.

I have done. I have also posted a number of times on this thread why the £35k a year figure is rubbish.

Nope. £35K is a 'safe' estimate. No doubt a young single healthy male need earn a lot less and still be a net contributor, but sooner or later marriage and kids happen. Not to mention that many send a big chunk of their earnings back home, taking that money out of the UK economy.

see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

[Mrr T]

s2art said:

Nope. £35K is a 'safe' estimate. No doubt a young single healthy male need earn a lot less and still be a net contributor, but sooner or later marriage and kids happen. Not to mention that many send a big chunk of their earnings back home, taking that money out of the UK economy.

see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

So you could not be bothered with any objective thinking. The £35k figure is rubbish and remains so.

It even allocates costs such as defence costs which are likely fixed cost.

Then you finish with the typical stereotype comment about them sending all there money home. Where do you get this rubbish.

Are you one of the great Nigel's troops?

[s2art]

Mrr T said:

s2art said:

Nope. £35K is a 'safe' estimate. No doubt a young single healthy male need earn a lot less and still be a net contributor, but sooner or later marriage and kids happen. Not to mention that many send a big chunk of their earnings back home, taking that money out of the UK economy.

see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...

So you could not be bothered with any objective thinking. The £35k figure is rubbish and remains so.

It even allocates costs such as defence costs which are likely fixed cost.

Then you finish with the typical stereotype comment about them sending all there money home. Where do you get this rubbish.

Are you one of the great Nigel's troops?

And wrong again. Going for a record? Did you read the link provided? Are you one of the great Corbyns troops?

[loafer123]

Mrr T said:

barryrs said:

Mrr T said:

I have done. I have also posted a number of times on this thread why the £35k a year figure is rubbish.

Apologies for asking you to repeat yourself but I must have missed this.

What benefits and services aren't working immigrants claiming that make them a net contributor at a lower figure?

For example I hear that immigrants are young and don't have as many kids so are less of a drain on education yet my local junior school teaches polish.

The £35k figure is calculated by allocating all costs. So an immigrant is not likely to be drawing a UK pension, they are less likely to be drawing non work benefits, and likely in work benefits as well, most importantly they will be making less than average use of the NHS because of their age. Something like 70% of the NHS budget is to provide care for the over 70's.

Immigrants are younger than the general population when they migrant. However, like us all they get older. Most of the first Polish immigrants will now have been in the UK 7-9 years. Now after working for that time they are having children. Indeed, current birth figures show 2nd highest country of birth for new mother's is Poland.

For employed households (i.e. excluding retired people) the threshold for being a net contributor was £32k in 2012.

See here. https://fullfact.org/economy/are-half-british-hous...

[Mrr T]

Jockman said:

Mrr T said:

Immigrants are younger than the general population when they migrant. However, like us all they get older. Most of the first Polish immigrants will now have been in the UK 7-9 years. Now after working for that time they are having children. Indeed, current birth figures show 2nd highest country of birth for new mother's is Poland.

I've been supplying the Polish Community for 37 years. They have been settled here for almost 70 years. Wonderful people.

Very true.

When they joined the EU and the UK decided not to apply work restrictions I could not decide if I agreed or not. We really did let them down after WW2.

No option I know but difficult to go to war in defence of an ally and win the war but the ally remains captive.

[Jockman]

Mrr T said:

So you could not be bothered with any objective thinking. The £35k figure is rubbish and remains so.

It even allocates costs such as defence costs which are likely fixed cost.

Then you finish with the typical stereotype comment about them sending all there money home. Where do you get this rubbish.

Are you one of the great Nigel's troops?

Your posts are getting stranger. Are you suggesting that we remove fixed costs and undertake an analysis of immigration on a marginal costing basis only?

A simple google explains that some of that money is repatriated. Hardly a crime and certainly very honourable to support families. But it does exist.

[Jockman]

Mrr T said:

Very true.

When they joined the EU and the UK decided not to apply work restrictions I could not decide if I agreed or not. We really did let them down after WW2.

No option I know but difficult to go to war in defence of an ally and win the war but the ally remains captive.

Indeed. A difficult situation.

[wc98]

dbdb said:

Maybe the EU are playing a long game, recognising that there is a yawning generation gap in opinion on the EU between older people who want to leave and younger people who are more minded to stay - and positioning themselves to capitalise on this difference in view between old and young voters in the future when demography has 'done its worst'.

the trouble with that train of thought is young people turn into old people and their views change.

[barryrs]

Mrr T said:

barryrs said:

Mrr T said:

I have done. I have also posted a number of times on this thread why the £35k a year figure is rubbish.

Apologies for asking you to repeat yourself but I must have missed this.

What benefits and services aren't working immigrants claiming that make them a net contributor at a lower figure?

For example I hear that immigrants are young and don't have as many kids so are less of a drain on education yet my local junior school teaches polish.

The £35k figure is calculated by allocating all costs. So an immigrant is not likely to be drawing a UK pension, they are less likely to be drawing non work benefits, and likely in work benefits as well, most importantly they will be making less than average use of the NHS because of their age. Something like 70% of the NHS budget is to provide care for the over 70's.

Immigrants are younger than the general population when they migrant. However, like us all they get older. Most of the first Polish immigrants will now have been in the UK 7-9 years. Now after working for that time they are having children. Indeed, current birth figures show 2nd highest country of birth for new mother's is Poland.

Thanks MrT.

I appreciate your position however I do disagree as it seems like a short term view and according to some newspaper reports the average immigrant wage is in the mid £20k, well below the net contribution figures.

[Jockman]

wc98 said:

dbdb said:

Maybe the EU are playing a long game, recognising that there is a yawning generation gap in opinion on the EU between older people who want to leave and younger people who are more minded to stay - and positioning themselves to capitalise on this difference in view between old and young voters in the future when demography has 'done its worst'.

the trouble with that train of thought is young people turn into old people and their views change.

IIRC from the Ashcroft poll analysis you are classed as 'old' at circa 45.

[wc98]

Jockman said:

IIRC from the Ashcroft poll analysis you are classed as 'old' at circa 45.

i am indeed old at 46 . please do not tell derek that, he will never read anything you or ashcroft write again