To think UKIP are wrong

[pauline6703]

People come to the UK because they are suffering abuse and disadvantage in their own countries.
I think we should offer then a safe place but UKIP seems to want to let them suffer abuse and pain. I think UKIP are wrong.
What do you all thing.

I agree the new figures are concerning. Net EU is at 142,000 and net non-EU higher, at 168,000. The non-EU is the figure the government has some control over, but they have failed to reduce it.

Yes, another broken Cameron promise. He'll shrug it off as student visitors because Britain provides a first-class education blah blah... Heard it all before.

It looks like the EU will be demanding even more billions from us soon - exact figure to be determined.

It's like paying a blackmailer - the more you give them the more they keep demanding

Even more reason to exit the EU now! and use the money we will save to provide schools! octopus! hospitals etc for these 250,000 extra people

Well not all immigrants are seeking refuge. All those multinational peeps in the City etc. So many things are half said and jumbled up with other things, it is difficult to extract reality from spin.

One of these is the panic at the moment about eu nationals and benefits. There was a set of numbers shown on the news wrt benefit and it stated that there are roughly 5.3 million benefit claimants in Britain and 130,000 of these were from other eu nationals. Is this even statistically significant?

There has always been an inflow of immigrants to Britain. In fact, everyone is an immigrant because there was no one here in the ice-age. I suppose what has prompted some people's reaction (not that some people don't have other agendas) is the thing is a lot has occurred over a very short time frame.

I don't understand why so many people are trying to get across to Britain from France.

It's a difficult one. Of course, decent people want to give safety to desperate people. One the other side, there is a finite amount of resources in Britain. Public services need to be rearranged even now to deliver more efficiently. I don't how you find the line of best fit on that one.

Read the Polish ambassador was making a plea for Polish health staff to return to poland. I guess that means nurses and doctors.

We lose nothing by leaving the EU. It's a sketch to say they are our largest trading partner. the EU actually buys more from US each year then we buy from them. we are the biggest market for Mercedes cars for instance.

see that's just crazy. They are by far our largest trading partner. If you (or UKIP) think that leaving the EU won't effect us (if we get thrown out of the single market), well that just stops the conversation for me. it's so blatantly false that if UKIP doesn't have a plan to deal with it, then they simply can't be taken seriously.

I suspect they have an answer for this though.

There are probably a lot of things the government could do to close up loop holes and the things that give fuel to cries of swamping and people feeling (or stoked up by certain elements to feeling) their resources are being threatened.

I do believe it suits a political agenda to curse the darkness rather than taking measures to rectify problem situations that give rise to public discontent.

I'll go so far as to say I think it suits the government very well to have a constant distraction for the public from the actual business and failure of governance.

they are not our largest trading partner. We buy more from the US than we buy from them.

Can you explain exactly what we gain by being in the EU? because if it's that good why did Dyson move his manufacturing base to the Far East, why do car companies start up in Tufkey or South America....

Sorry, the EU is a con and people are swallowing it. It's corrupt, anti-democratic and it's demand ps gift more and more money when we are orating our own domestic services to the bone is frankly obscene.

But it appeals to a certain person who confuses Europe ( which I love) with the EU which is anti Europe and all for a power hungry superstate, the boundaries if which far exceed these of Europe.

Pangurban

You would have thought that high speed comms had never been invented if we need all these foreign nationalists to physically come to the UK to conduct business, so that argument doesn't quite stack up.

Yes, a lot of people have come because the UK is successful. It's successful because it has retained the £, as the Euro is in a terrible state.

But you need to realise that sooner or later we will gave to jump off the EU gravy train. That train ends in a station that is one superstate with a single currency, single justice system, single immigration policy, single tax system, single army, single defence policy. Each EU treaty takes us a little step further down that route.

If ghosts what you want that's fine. I'd rather not be tucked by someone like Junckers who I never elected, cannot get fund of and who is currently under investigation fir some possible irregular dealings.

they are not our largest trading partner. We buy more from the US than we buy from them.

Exports? Where do our businesses sell things?

Depending on the source you read, Germany ALONE beats the US in both categories (imports and exports). Some sources list US ahead in one category, but that with regards to ONE EU country, albeit the largest. The EU as a whole is miles ahead.

here is a guardian article for 2011 statistics (I can't seem to find an newer one).

www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/24/uk-trade-exports-imports

Can you explain exactly what we gain by being in the EU? because if it's that good why did Dyson move his manufacturing base to the Far East, why do car companies start up in Tufkey or South America....

who cares about one or a handful of companies?

Sorry, the EU is a con and people are swallowing it. It's corrupt, anti-democratic and it's demand ps gift more and more money when we are orating our own domestic services to the bone is frankly obscene.

Oh, I agree with this. What we get out of it is trade, but it is a sink hole for money. Corrupt and anti-democratic.

The problem is that leaving it won't be the answer. Why? Look at Switzerland. In order to access the common market, they have to comply with essentially all the regulations, but being a non-member have essentially no say in its make up. That's what will happen to us likely.

I think you'll find that 2011 statistics have been overtaken.

It's also a fallacy that Swiz, Norway, etc all have to fully comply the EU rules in order to trade with them. They don't. The advantage that Swiz and Norway have is that they do not have to allow every member of every EU country to come and live in Swiz or Norway. They control their borders, they control their justice system, they set and raise their own levels of taxation, etc etc.They can make trade deals with any country they want to. Norway heads the worlds fishing organisation

Have you heard of EFTA? The European Free Trade
Assoc that we all belong to already. We just need to get out of the EU and continue trading via EFTA. There is nothing to stop us - except our current EU handcuffs

I think you'll find that 2011 statistics have been overtaken.

Do point me to where this information is. I don't believe it.

It's also a fallacy that Swiz, Norway, etc all have to fully comply the EU rules in order to trade with them. They don't. The advantage that Swiz and Norway have is that they do not have to allow every member of every EU country to come and live in Swiz or Norway.

a) that's false. Both Norway and Switzerland must comply with free movement to access the common market. Switzerland recently had a referendum (Feb 2014), where voters said they wanted the free movement clause removed, and the EU rejected it (obviously). And it won't work if the UK tries it. Free movement and the common market are two of the basic principles of the EU; no one will get exception unless the EU utterly falls apart.

b) I don't see it as an advantage.

The problem is Written that "free movement" originally meant the free movement of good when the Common 'market was just a trading partnership.

It then extended to the "free movement of goods and services". Once you include services you have to include the people who provide those services.

Swiz, Norway and those countries that have not joined the EU but have limited their relationship with the EU to a common trading market do not have to accommodate any EU citizen who wants to go and live there. So I cannot chose to live in Swiz or Norway as I could chose to live in any of the 27 EU member countries.

The fact that lots of people of different nationalities operate in the City is not an argument. 'Tis a fact. Same as for multinational businesses and even the Oligarchs.

And yes, you could say that business comes because the UK is a successful open market in which to operate from. Or it is still successful because they come? And can operate across the EU from here. Or/and maybe they receive nice deals from government.

John Humphreys was on the radio this morning in relation to the issues about Luxembourg and it's corporate tax avoidance schemes. John Humphreys was terribly righteous so it was interesting when the guy he was speaking to said that three quarters of the cash going through the City of London was sourced in Guernsey and similar haven arrangements (thereby implying that he did not have a lot to be righteous about).

A lot of these people maybe like operating out of Britain as it stands, but I don't know if they need it. They are fairly much able to operate out of anywhere accommodating to them, if they have to.

London is providing an oasis if financial common sense within the EU. That's why financial services are so important to us as a country and why the EU try to damage our competitiveness by introducing laws to curb banker bonuses. It damages yes more than them. I expect howls of, they are right to curb bonuses and while I agree that bankers should be punished, curbing bonuses is an ineffective way of doing it if you font also set salary controls as what was paid in bonuses will just get added to salaries.

I sometimes think we are like Hong Kong in financial terms, trading within but on the edge of a large undemocratic superstate.

Swiz, Norway and those countries that have not joined the EU but have limited their relationship with the EU to a common trading market do not have to accommodate any EU citizen who wants to go and live there. So I cannot chose to live in Swiz or Norway as I could chose to live in any of the 27 EU member countries.

that's just plain wrong. From the Swiss Federal Office of Migration.

www.bfm.admin.ch/bfm/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta/eu-efta_buerger_schweiz/eu-17_efta.html

"Citizens of France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, have full rights to freedom of movement since June 1, 2007."

(other EU members simply had a different starting date. Polish citizens got this right later).

I'm pretty sure that under the Free Movement of Persons Agreement you can go and work in Switzerland.

As written says, they may have voted to reject the Agreement in Feb, but we'll see how far they get with that...

In the Swiz context it means you can go to live in Swiz if you are filling a vacant job opportunity and you apply for a residency order if you will be there for more than 3 months

That us very different to the undeniable right of any EU citizen to live in the country of any other EU member. That's what we are experiencing. We do not have the controls of job and residency that Swiz as a non EU member has

try it. Pitch up in Geneva with no job and no house and see how they treat you

Wet August, you could even try and pitch up in Madrid with no job and no house and see how they treat you. Their social welfare benefits are not generous or long lasting to say the least if you are looking for unemployment. You have to have made contributions and then the welfare benefits are not open ended. They are an EU country. And I guess Germany won't be too happy with you looking for the dole neither. Since their recent court case it is established that you are have freedom of travel for work but not welfare tourism.

It wouldn't be too sorry for bankers and their bonuses. Why would you object to their salaries being raised instead. Because the tax would pay for hospitals and schools.

Britain could make many changes that are not prohibited by the EU. It's government does not choose to do so. (better to blame the EU).

I agree with many of your points. The bankers would probably find an offshore tax loophole for tax avoidance.

The main point I am trying to make is. Is it worth having the entire fabric of our country changed for the sake of trade benefits that are illusory and attainable without having to be in the EU?

As a nation we have strived for centuries to provide good education, good health system, good benefits system, good response to international requests for aid, good legal system, etc etc etc. Because other EU countries have not provided such good benefits does that mean we now have to reduce the benefits that we provide to our own permanently settled citizens?

However you look at it, this is a crisis, We simply don't have the infrastructure that can accommodate a rise in population of 260,000 people a year I,e, a city the size of Plymouth. In my gown we have mobile trailers parked along suburban side streets inhabited by workers/migrants whatever. They have no running water, no sewage facilities (bucket down the nearest street drain). These people cannot afford the local inner city rents.

Is that the price we have to pay to increase our trade? if so, it's a price that I am not prepared to pay.

Whoever said the more people contribute the more resources we have is talking complete and utter bull.

Money maybe (debatable), infrastructure- in an ideal world but in reality no
Natural resources? You think these can be contributed to? Wtf? Or did you just forget about them?

And let's not even start on the increase in pollution caused by population growth in cities.

we have mobile trailers parked along suburban side streets inhabited by workers/migrants whatever. They have no running water, no sewage facilities (bucket down the nearest street drain). These people cannot afford the local inner city rents.
I have never heard of this, perhaps you could point me in the direction of evidence, please.

You don't have to change the fabric of anything to deny non-contributory welfare tourism to other eu nationals who arrive without work. Mind you, you sometimes get the feeling that there are quite a few people in Britain who are disgruntled at the idea of an entitlement for anyone at all to any non-contributory welfare payments, and would be quite happy to clip the Welfare state itself.

Many other EU countries provide excellent health, benefits and education systems paid for through taxes and social insurance contributions. It's just you don't arrive in and claim unemployment without having contributed. This is obviously not against EU rules.

That 260,000 is a net migration figure for the year until June 2014 and includes all eu and non-eu nationals. It takes into account those who have emigrated from Britain and deducts it from the people who have immigrated into Britain. So, in total 585,000 people came into Britain and over 300,000 people left. 228,000 were EU nationals and 272,000 were from everywhere else.

That trailer parking scenario is obviously without planning permission if people are living there and it has no water or if it has no effluent/sewage treatment system and it sounds like Environmental Health should be called out pronto. Either the council has failed to act or has not been alerted.

Have PM'd you

Pangurban

If it were so easy why has the Govt (and previous Govts) not sought to limit benefits to those who had contributed?

They can't There are reciprocal agreements with other EU member countries for benefits and for health care. The trouble is (or benefit is) that our welfare and health system is a lot better than a lot of other EU member countries.

Yes, 260,000 is net migration. Yes, the church is over half a million. You cannot state that the UK can accommodate 500+ people from outside the EU each year without it having some effect on our culture, our trdaitions etc Or perhaps you are one of those that believes our culture is not worth saving?

In an ideal world one would pick up the phone, report matters to environmentla health and everything would be sorted. Unfortunately it doesnt work like that.

First of all, I am only speaking about the EU nationals and the idea that the EU prevents the UK in tightening up their rules in any way in relation to EU migration and welfare payments. I think somebody said it's all the EU's fault really. I don't know why British governments take the decisions they do. But there are many issues they could address at nation state level which the EU ends up allocated blame for. I dunno, maybe it's handy for them and they can blame things on someone else.

I didn't say anything about culture which is not necessarily uniform in the UK anyway. Do you mean Gaelic in Lewis, or Welsh or Irish in NI or English? I don't think these are all exactly the same. I don't know if there is a British culture. Don't forget the recent Scottish referendum. It was a vote to remain part of the UK. It wasn't an insignificant yes vote. There are also British people whose culture doesn't reflect any of those.

Yes, the British health and welfare systems are better than some EU countries, but not better than all of them, of course. It would depend on what criteria you use to compare them. Welfare may be spread out more and there may be less stringent (but not necessarily fairer) criteria for someone to receive some sort of payment. However, I hear a lot of British people complain about that. I'm not sure Germany, Sweden and France would feel their systems were in any way inferior. In fact, I have relatives in one of those countries and their education, health and welfare systems are absolutely wonderful.

Bet if you were in Germany, you could just ring up environmental health and they would do their job (slightly tongue in cheek)! Maybe a well functioning local government would be a good culture to have.