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.

But, to keep your pristine country side, you are willing to prevent Poles and other europeans from having a better life?

Frankly - yes.

Because there comes a point where what the people of another country wants is infringing on what I want for my own country.

Where does it stop?.

What about the increased pollution and environmental damage caused by another 260,000 people cramming themselves into the existing infrastructure every year.

Where Cameron failed again today was in not stating that they was a level of population above which Britain could not sustain. But that would be political suicide. So we all carry on with the pretence that we live in a country with unlimited potential for growth.

What UKIP needs to explain is how restricting the rights and movement of workers is good for workers. It isn't. It's good for some workers, but not for most. That will hurt both Europeans that want to come here and Brits how want to work in Europe (who are conveniently forgotten).

No, you're wrong

What you need to do is to explain how exactly 260,000 additional people are going to be accommodated by the Uk each year.

Try these:

Where will they live and what effect will that have on house prices and rents?

How will they travel about and what effect will that have on our transport infrastructure?

What medical services will they require and have you ensured that these services are available where they are needed?

How many additional school places will be needed to educate their children and which schools need to have an increase in class sizes?

How much will this cost us in additional 'in work' benefits such as housing benefit, child allowance, work credit, free nursery time etc.

Go on, have a go at answering those and dont try to patronise me by telling me that they are all single people in terrifuc health who dont have children and therefore have no need whatsover for any of our services. Because that's not true.

And good luck, because even Cameron admitted he didnt know how many people would come here or how many people will come here in future years.

Frankly - yes.

well, that's where we differ. My view of the hills doesn't trump the quite dire problems that young people face in Spain with 50% unemployment, in my opinion.

Your view seems to encompass thousands of miles of unspoilt British countryside in every direction.

I want to keep it that way.

WetAugust I've read (briefly) the DM article now and as far as I can gather, they are being paid the minimum wage and Next is recruiting from Poland because it can't fill all the vacancies from within the local area

"It advertised the jobs in Britain on November 19 and says 100 jobs are still up for grabs at South Elmsall." Also, these are temporary placements to cover to very busy work periods during Christmas and the late spring sales. Again, if British people want to buy cheap clothes, then the wages of workers distributing those clothes need to be low too.

Of course there are problems with distribution of growth that need to be addressed and problems with EU bureacracy that can be improved

(and by necessity, 28 countries trying to work together will always be an uneasy bureaucratic compromise because it is a very hard thing to do but one that is worth it imo)

but believe me, people who are struggling now in the current climate will be struggling much more if we left the EU and were left to compete on the open market against low wage countries such as China and India without the power and block leverage that other European countries afford us in protecting our market.

And from the EU Observer:

"British consular figures indicate that just as many UK citizens live in the EU as vice-versa, despite popular perceptions.

The numbers, covering 2010, were put forward last week in a government response to a parliamentary question by Matthew Oakeshott, a Liberal member of the House of Lords.

Compared to the 2.3 million EU citizens in the UK, which includes people who came after Poland and nine other states joined the Union in 2004, British consular authorities estimate that 2.2 million Britons live in the other 26 EU countries, excluding Croatia, which joined in 2013.

Other popular destinations are: France (330,000); Ireland (329,000); Germany (107,000); Cyprus (65,000); the Netherlands (48,000); Greece (45,000); Portugal (39,000); and Italy (37,000).

The government reply indicates the real numbers could be higher, due to “a high evidence of non-registration” in France, Portugal and Spain.

Of the total, some 400,000 are British pensioners."

Do you think that British pensioners living abroad won't be calling on the health services of their chosen countries?

And if you want us to keep tabs more accurately on who is entering the country and leaving the country, then why not adopt identity cards? People cannot access benefits or housing in other European countries without them.

As for increased pollution and environmental damage, that is a prime consideration of the EU and it is EU rules that often force the UK to abide by acceptable levels. Clouds of poisonous pollutants do not respect national borders.

As for the exploitation of ordinary workers, it sounds to me like you are not challenging the EU as such but the UK opt-out of much of the EU's social legislative programme designed to protection workers rights.

I don't think UKIP is in favour of such rights btw!

The Swiz vote to limit migration to 0.2% happens this weekend,

The Greens are anti an increase in population because of the environmental damage.

Says it all.

designed to protect workers rights

Most of the cheap labour moving here from the EU is employed in service industries. As these businesses mainly service the British economy there is no incentive to move to say Bulgaria or Romania.

And btw, when David Cameron in his speech today quoted the benefits which the UK gives to the dependent child/family of a worker say from Poland, who comes to work in the UK (but their child remains in their home country) as being three or four times that that they would receive if the parent was working in Germany; he did not (conveniently) explain why this was the case.

It's because (thanks to subsidiarity) the benefits across the EU are not uniform so each national government can set the benefit rates which it provides foreign workers from within the EU.

That means that somewhere along the line, the UK government (or one in the past) decided to provide the dependents of foreign EU workers a package three times more generous than that is offered by Germany (whether you think that is right or wrong is a separate matter). What matters is that the national government of the UK took that decision. And yet, conveniently again, the EU gets the blame.

WetAugust I've read (briefly) the DM article now and as far as I can gather, they are being paid the minimum wage and Next is recruiting from Poland because it can't fill all the vacancies from within the local area

Are there no unemployed in the local area? Are the indigenous unemployed so stupid/feckless/workshy that they could not be trained to do simple work?

"It advertised the jobs in Britain on November 19 and says 100 jobs are still up for grabs at South Elmsall." Also, these are temporary placements to cover to very busy work periods during Christmas and the late spring sales. Again, if British people want to buy cheap clothes, then the wages of workers distributing those clothes need to be low too.

It tried really hard to get locals didn't it. So are there 100 unemployed people in the catchment area and why are they not ening asked to fill these vacancies. Only quoting what Cameron said in his speech today, that UK based unemployed should not be permitted to remain so.

Where are these temporary placemnet Polish staff going to live, because the minimum wage the article says they are being paid would not cover their accommodation costs not those of a Uk based minimum wage worker without benefit top-ups.

Of course there are problems with distribution of growth that need to be addressed and problems with EU bureacracy that can be improved

Cant disagree with that.

(and by necessity, 28 countries trying to work together will always be an uneasy bureaucratic compromise because it is a very hard thing to do but one that is worth it imo)

Not IMO. 28 countries all trying to design a camel that fits all of them, Weve seen what happened with the one-size-fits-all Euro, now they want to apply it to employment rights, benefit rights etc etc, Doesnt work.

but believe me, people who are struggling now in the current climate will be struggling much more if we left the EU and were left to compete on the open market against low wage countries such as China and India without the power and block leverage that other European countries afford us in protecting our market.

We would not struggle if we left the EU Countries would be queuing up to trade with it, as they did before we joined the common market and which they would do again if we reverted to EFTA style trading partnership. We in the UK are a low wage country. We are on a downwards spiral in terms of workers rights and conditions. EU does not give us leverage, it charges countries to trade with us and it charges us to trade with other countries, It is a dead burden on our shoulders.

And from the EU Observer:

(which is a leftist pro-EU publication)

^"British consular figures indicate that just as many UK citizens live in the EU as vice-versa, despite popular perceptions.

The numbers, covering 2010, were put forward last week in a government response to a parliamentary question by Matthew Oakeshott, a Liberal member of the House of Lords.

Compared to the 2.3 million EU citizens in the UK, which includes people who came after Poland and nine other states joined the Union in 2004, British consular authorities estimate that 2.2 million Britons live in the other 26 EU countries, excluding Croatia, which joined in 2013.

Other popular destinations are: France (330,000); Ireland (329,000); Germany (107,000); Cyprus (65,000); the Netherlands (48,000); Greece (45,000); Portugal (39,000); and Italy (37,000).

The government reply indicates the real numbers could be higher, due to a high evidence of non-registration in France, Portugal and Spain.^

Those figures are totally out of date. 160,000 net immigrants 2012-13 and a further 260,000 in 2014-15.

^Of the total, some 400,000 are British pensioners."

Do you think that British pensioners living abroad won't be calling on the health services of their chosen countries?^

So you are saying that exporting our pensioners relieves the burden on the NHS? Thats funny. These British pensioners make very few demands on their host countries. For a start Spain and most Med countries expect their elderly to be cared for by relatives so have very little in the way of old age care which is why most British pensioners return to the Uk in old age. While they are in their host countries they are in receipt of UK pensions which boosts the local economies, so I imagine places like Spain are quite happy to have them.

And if you want us to keep tabs more accurately on who is entering the country and leaving the country, then why not adopt identity cards? People cannot access benefits or housing in other European countries without them.

Because there is a traditional aversion in the UK to ID cards, political parties shy away from it. I have no problem with it. But its unnecessary. All you have to do is be a little more careful about who you issue NI numbers to. These could be used to denote what range of benefits a person is entitled to.We will need some way of ear-marking those that Cameron wishes to deport once they've been unemployed for 6 onths. You know, the whole idea of that actually happening is so funny that i had difficulty typing it. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN We cannot even deport convicted criminals, we have no chance of keeping tracks on an ever-changing workforce.

As for increased pollution and environmental damage, that is a prime consideration of the EU and it is EU rules that often force the UK to abide by acceptable levels. Clouds of poisonous pollutants do not respect national borders.

It's not EU emmissions we should be worrying about but Chinese coal powered power stations. they are building 3 each week while the EU forces us to close power stations. Wait until the electricity supply dries up. Which it will very soon.

As for the exploitation of ordinary workers, it sounds to me like you are not challenging the EU as such but the UK opt-out of much of the EU's social legislative programme designed to protection workers rights.

If we all adopted the Alice in wonderland employment policies of some of these EU countries wed have a 35 hour week like France or people who worked in dangerous occupations retiring at 45 (hairdressers in Greece). Its a bit rich that you think we in Britain have to take lessons from the EU in workers rights. We have quite a proud history of that ourselves.

I don't think UKIP is in favour of such rights btw!

Dont think learn. Ukip is much more attuned with the worries of the working person than the Tories or Labour currently are. As a union member of over 3 decades standing myself, I wouldn't be supporting its views if it was anti-worker.

Can't you see that it's the EU that is exploiting the workforce:

1. Remove national identy
2. Merge all workers into single force that can be deployed where and when required at minimum wage
3. Enjoy the profits

The Eu gets the blame because if we were not in the EU we wouldn't be in this stupid situation.

Cameron will not be able to cease child benefit for Polish workers whose children remain in Polnad. It's illegal under EU rules and the Polish Govt have already threatened legal action.

What Cameron pronounced is Cameron's WishList Nothing nothing. He knows it cannot happen but it might just be enough to kick the can a bit further down the road, to buy a bit of time, to fool enough people into voting him back in.

Most of his wish list will, according to an academic on EU law, need Treaty Change.

eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-nine-labours-of-cameron-analysis-of.html

Treaty Change takes years Meanwhile the Uk population will have grown by another million or 2.

Is that what you want?

Because I really don't understand how you think the ordinary person is benefitting from all this. But perhaps you are not ordinary people. perhaos you ae the sheleterd elite who just love to wave their liveral elite credentials at every opportunity and screw the rest of us who are living in the real world.

WetAugust; why do you find it necessary to become so agressive and personal in your last paragraph I wonder? I've tried to be respectful in my answers to you.

To address the real issues:

There are clearly issues where we are at odds.

On the trade side, I think it is fairly clear that at a global level we are a high cost economy with relatively high wage costs - lower cost than other parts of the EU. Social dumping in the EU would be less if our costs of production were closer aligned to other high cost EU Member States - but then we would sacrifice growth. No one can have its cake and eat it.

At least the EU has offered the UK significant flexibility to be different .

Your assessment of UKIP as being a socialist worker friendly party is more concerning. Have a look at this summary (from The Guardian here) but repeated elsewhere…. Not really the sort of messages that a pro-workers party would be expected to lead on... .

For an officially free-market party, Ukip made a perhaps surprising number of significant state spending commitments in its last full policy document, the 2010 election manifesto:

• Defence spending would rise by 40%, with the navy getting more than 70 new ships, including three aircraft carriers.

• The number of prison places would be doubled, with £30bn committed to flood defences and an unquantified further amount going to transport investment, including high-speed rail lines, more roads and improved ports and airports.

• Almost £90bn would be committed to a mass programme of building nuclear power stations.

The spending seemingly relies upon presumed savings from leaving the EU, which – the manifesto estimates, without giving a source – could total £120bn a year. There are similarly woolly promises about economies from cutting red tape and "non-jobs". Tax plans are more predictably new right, with a proposed flat combined income tax and national insurance rate of 31% for any annual income above £11,500.

One of the party's more controversial views is its position on energy and climate change. Ukip is avowedly sceptical about human-caused climate change, claiming that "more and more scientists are challenging the conventional wisdom on global warming". Ukip's solution would be a radical rollback of renewable energy projects, such as wind farms, in favour of nuclear power and the likes of shale gas.

This all suggests that as a trade union supporter and perhaps a traditional labour supporter the question is why has labour been so unable to resolve the condundrum of historical baggage which has prevented it – and therefore a large part of the UK electorate – from recognising and endorsing the EU’s efforts to make the Union a social union and not just a conservative UKIP esque business opportunity?

Have to leave this thread now as engaging in a very elitist activity and taking my 11 yr old to the ballet tonight to watch Swan Lake. Immigrant workers from the UKraine are taking the star roles ... .

www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

"When considering the resident immigrant population in each year
from 1995 to 2011, immigrants from the European Economic Area (EEA) have made a positive fiscal contribution, even during periods when the UK was running budget deficits. For immigrants that arrived
since 2000, contributions have been positive throughout, and particularly so for immigrants from EEA countries. Notable is the strong positive contribution made by immigrants from countries that
joined the EU in 2004."

Fwiw (then I really do have to sign out) my background is Irish Catholicism; not a group usually accused of elitism and I am a member of an organisation that campaigns for social justice through my church. (In fact the only reason I am still a practising Catholic is for reasons of social justice.)

I just don't happen to think that the principles of social justice should only apply to people living in the UK.

And aside from all of that, everyone has right to comment on any thread on Mumsnet, whatever their social status, rich or poor, British national or not.

I don't accept critiques on Ujip from Left-wing papers like the Guardian

You can really on your chosen statistics - I could rely on MigrationWatch's very different take on the situation.

Quoting an obsolete manifesto from 2010 is clutching at straws. Almost as good as Cameron's pledge to reduce migration or sack me.

Put aside the 'soft' benefits of immigration.

Nobody has given me any figures that explictly state that this level of immigration is good for the UK. Probably because until the actual figures were published yesteday, nobody bar Cameron and May actually knew what the figures were.

All I know is that to accommodate just last year's net new arrivals we need to build a city the size of Sunderland.

Did we - no. So we'll have to squeeze these poeple into existing infrastructure.

Next year we should be building a city the size of Plymouth to accommdate next years projected net migration.

We'd better start soon.

We cannot go on squeezing a quart into a pint-sized pot without the whole system overflowing.

It is also dangerous for us to continue to ignore our home-grown unemployed and those in low waged jobs whose wages are being depressed by high levels of immigration. If we do we will be building up a pressure within society that will eventually be impossible to contain.

That's how riots start. That seriously worries me. I would much prefer that we sat down and sensibly decided just how much we would like this country to grow and make plans to accommodate that growth. I feel rather stupid as, when i was a census enumerator i told people the reason we were collecting this data was to plan for their public serviees, only to find that nowadays things are just left to grow orgaincally. Unplanned, disporanised growth will lead to disaster.
On the watch of a Govt very soon there will be a backlash. And that scares the hell out of me.
I don't expect the UK will ever leave the EU - it's become another sacred cow. But instead of mocking Ukip you should grateful that it is providing a safety valve. People will only put up with so much.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11190269/If-EU-migration-is-the-problem-Switzerland-and-Norway-are-not-the-answer.html

Here you go then - criticism from the Telegraph.

Because I really don't understand how you think the ordinary person is benefitting from all this.

you can't think how ordinary people are benefiting? I can think of at least 5 million people who are (the 2.5 europeans in the UK and the 2.5 Brits in europe). all those people have voted with their feet.