to wonder how the country will cope with hundreds of thousands more people each year?

[evilcherub]

If the UK is going to continue to have immigration of hundreds of thousands every year (which is more likely if we don't leave the EU) and the Tories apparently having no real interest in building more genuinely affordable homes (because lower house prices do not bring in votes for the Tories), then where are the millions of extra people and families going to live (when there is already a massive housing crisis and homelessness is going through the roof)? Also, what about all the extra schools needed, the extra hospitals (when at the moment they cannot cope and the Tories want to privatise them anyway), the jobs etc? Unless you are well off/bought your home years ago and have a well-established, well paying job, then immigration means extreme and expensive competition for housing, school places, healthcare, jobs etc. I just don't see it ending well.

The UK doesn't have to have housing, healthcare, education, and transport systems that are all creaking under the strain. Other European countries manage perfectly well without being in a continuing state of crisis! It is the policies of successive governments that have lead to these (I agree very real) problems

The UK under Tony Blair had no work breaks when barriers were lifted for the Poles to come and work, other countries sensibly put work barriers in.

So we got hit.

Now Germany has a sudden influx it too is creaking under the strain.

Of course other countries managed very well, they didnt have hundreds of thousands of people SUDDENLY coming here.

But they are not coping NOW are they.

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/08/refugee-crisis-germany-creaks-under-strain-of-open-door-policy

The realities of shouldering Europe’s refugee crisis are coming home to Germany, amid daily reports of clashes in asylum seeker homes; bureaucrats overwhelmed by a backlog of registration claims and deep divisions within chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative ranks over how to manage the enormity of the challenge.

School authorities are calling for at least 25,000 new teaching recruits to cope with the large numbers of new pupils, police officers are being brought out of retirement in their thousands, and the nation is being scoured for suitable accommodation as winter approaches.

please please dont write rubbish like that again.

The UK under Tony Blair had no work breaks when barriers were lifted for the Poles to come and work

This is another point people like to poo poo. They laugh at the 'they took our jobs!' lot but for a lot of working class people this was a legitimate happening. Especially for self employed labourers, cleaners and the like. But because perhaps a lot couldn't articulate it very well it descended to 'the forriners took our jobs' and became a bit of a joke.

Is this the EU talking? I don't recognise this, sorry. I just don't understand the Leave rhetoric about how leaving will 'liberate' the UK. From what exactly?

I think you misunderstand me. To be honest I"m being a bit flip about 'absolute power' but I have genuine and well-founded concerns about the direction of travel of EU governance and its already-demonstrated disinterest in the views of ordinary voters.

There are several reasons why the UK system of government is more democratic than the EU one and why we should think carefully about ceding final authority to a supranational body.

Firstly, once laws are passed in the EU they can never be repealed. So bad law, stupid law, dangerous or unpopular or harmful law is there for good and no amount of outcry by electorates can change it. This contrasts with a basic principle of UK parliamentary democracy, in which any party, once elected, can repeal laws passed by a previous government. This means that the electorate can kick out an unpopular government and elect one with a mandate to repeal laws which turned out to be damaging or unpopular.

Secondly, laws within the EU are not originated by elected officials. Laws are drafted by the European Commission, a permanent body (and arguably the true seat of EU government) and only ratified by elected MEPs. This is equivalent to imagining a situation in which all UK legislation is thought up by the Civil Service, drafted by the Civil Service in consultation with who knows which lobby groups and only then put in front of MPs essentially for a rubber stamp. In contrast, in the UK parliamentary system political parties campaign on a manifesto which they then attempt to bring into law; those laws may be challenged by the Opposition, they may be watered down or amended or indeed voted down by the Lords but they are first presented to the electorate for consideration, then scrutinised by elected representatives and finally subject to review by a second chamber.

The seat of EU government is the EU Commission, which is equivalent to its civil service but wields considerably more power than the UK civil service. It would be outrageous that the UK might send the head of its civil service to negotiate with foreign nations on behalf of the UK instead of the Prime Minister, but that's exactly what Jean-Claude Juncker, an unelected official and President of the European Commission, does.

There are numerous other reasons why the EU's structure and mode of governance concerns me. My concerns aren't based on some vague idea of 'liberty to do what we like' but on a deep worry that the EU's well-documented 'democratic deficit' (ie reluctance to give any real power to elected officials, or pay much attention to what electorates want) is simply not recognised. My concerns are not based on a desire to say 'stuff you' to the Germans, but on a worry that the profound implications of signing up to a political union with explicitly federal ambitions and such a profound democratic deficit could spell the end of any meaningful representative democracy in this country. I don't deny that UK democracy is flawed, but it is a thousand times better than the thin simulacrum of democratic process I see in the operations of the EU and I want us to retain it.

This referendum is a chance to have that argument, and it frustrates me beyond words to see it reduced again and again to one about the money in your pocket, or the racists in your village, and seeing those who are arguing for Leave traduced again and again as obsolete thickos hankering for the glory days of empire. I don't disagree that leaving would be disruptive and probably, in the short term, force some economic adjustments. But, for the sake of retaining the distinctively UK model of governance that I still believe to be better, for all its faults, than most of the other ones on offer including that proposed by the EU, I think we should leave.

Look people are taking what I said out of context. It was implied earlier that my getting a house was because I was an affluent Bremainer. Total rubbish. I saved and worked hard to get what I have. In no way ever implying that other people don't work hard and save. Where do I ever say that? Nowhere. Ever.

I said earlier that the fact that you own a house and employ a cleaner, decorator, electrician etc means you're affluent. The fact that you have worked hard and saved to buy this house does not in any way undermine this statement of fact.

Affluent people benefit from cheap labour in a way that low-paid workers do not.

Sorry posted too soon then got distracted the whole two paras were highlighted

The realities of shouldering Europe’s refugee crisis are coming home to Germany, amid daily reports of clashes in asylum seeker homes; bureaucrats overwhelmed by a backlog of registration claims and deep divisions within chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative ranks over how to manage the enormity of the challenge

School authorities are calling for at least 25,000 new teaching recruits to cope with the large numbers of new pupils, police officers are being brought out of retirement in their thousands, and the nation is being scoured for suitable accommodation as winter approaches.

They laugh at the 'they took our jobs!' lot but for a lot of working class people this was a legitimate happening

And those who laughed and sneered were the .....Labour party, who are now in ....

Sound familiar?

Reports of a youth community project having to move out to make way for an asylum seeker shelter, or a woman living in local authority housing being forced to downsize so that her flat could be used by refugees are regularly making the headlines and stoking resentment. “The message needs to reach the top, as to where the problems lie, and that we’ve reached a limit,” Wolfgang Rzehak, of the Greens, who heads Bavaria’s regional council recently told the daily TAZ

I'm not sure the 40% cuts in public sector funding aren't having more of an impact on the things worrying people - but it's okay - we'll distract people with immigration and blame it all on that

Can Immigration be a problem - yes - sometimes

Is the only pressure on housing, health etc - No

Have cuts to public services (housing, Health, Social Care, Social Work, Libraries, Education) had an impact - yes

I'm slightly gobsmacked to learn that not only does the NHS spends £23M on translation services, but that they entertain change requests based on gender or general dislike.

I trust that only asylum seekers, i.e. those who couldn't reasonably be expected to learn English, are eligible?

I trust that only asylum seekers, i.e. those who couldn't reasonably be expected to learn English, are eligible?
No, anyone who can't speak the language is eligible.

This is how it works in my trust and the neighbouring one anyway, may differ in some and be more strict.

Fantastic post OTheHugeManatee

I don't wish to delve into unpleasant, 'you must speak English' nationalist kind of nonsense but those who emigrate to another country (outside of asylum-seekers) should learn the language in due course or suffer the logical consequences, and cannot expect their newly adopted country to bend to their native country's notions of gender segregation.

This kind of soft-peddling does no one any favours.

You may think that E.U Commission is a less democratic body than directly elected countries' parliaments but it netherveless still the elected Parliament which -at least officially- passes the laws. And this Parliament seems enough open-minded as to accept AND PAY with european citizens' money self proclaimed anti-E.U MPs such as Marine LePen or Nigel Farage -which has always appeared to me like a flaw in liberal democracy.

All I have to add is that I've heard that the country may actually start to subside with all the influx of people.....I find threads like odd..wanders back of thread

I don't wish to delve into unpleasant, 'you must speak English' nationalist kind of nonsense but those who emigrate to another country (outside of asylum-seekers) should learn the language in due course or suffer the logical consequences, and cannot expect their newly adopted country to bend to their native country's notions of gender segregation.

Just out of interest - how many ex-pats living in France and Spain speak fluent Spanish and French? I have no doubt there are few but what would be the percentage?

What Myosotisbleu said.

You may think that E.U Commission is a less democratic body than directly elected countries' parliaments but it netherveless still the elected Parliament which -at least officially- passes the laws.

The EU Commission is an unelected body, staffed by people who are not elected and can't be deposed if they do something electorates don't like. It has sole power to originate EU directives. Is it really acceptable that MEP's don't come up with directives, and are just asked to rubber stamp them?

Don't you see how that basically removes any incentive to listen to electorates when proposing and drafting legislation? If the people who originate and draft the laws don't answer to the voting public, why should they care what that public thinks of the laws they draft?

Just out of interest - how many ex-pats living in France and Spain speak fluent Spanish and French? I have no doubt there are few but what would be the percentage?

Good question, no idea. They should learn the language too (are you suggesting I have some UK bias?). I'm fairly certain that translation services are thin on the ground based on my own French health care experience, which had me googling words like 'bladder' - I had a UTI on holiday. Not fun.

Good point Martina. This Telegraph article is enlightening.

www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/11193034/Unsociable-British-expats-fail-to-make-local-friends.html

But how is that a good point? The NHS has zero responsibility for how integrated British expats are. Surely it's up to each country to decide how to deal with residents who can't speak the language.

Martina asked how many British expats (specifically in France or Spain, but there are plenty elsewhere too) speak the local language and the article gives a figure. That's all.

I have not accessed translators in EU medical settings either.I didn't expect them.

Also, Apple being in a foreign country on holiday is not the same as being a permanent resident, however unpleasant your experience with the French healthcare system.

Your implication is clear: British people tend not to integrate when they emigrate, so we've no right to expect this of anyone else.

That's someone else's problem as far as I'm concerned. Let Spain or France point them to a dictionary when they turn up at the hospital.

By they way, I've purposely side-stepped the word 'integrate' - it is in my experience code-speak for those who harbour properly xenophobic tendencies. I suggest only that incomers should speak the local language.