To think 335,000 extra people coming to the UK in a year is too high

[jdoe8]

Where will they all live? What jobs will they all do? I know it may help GDP, but that is irrelevant as GDP per head is the important thing.

It does seem to be race to the bottom with more part time work , uber type work and the country is borrowing more and more and the national debt is 35k per head now.

What is that in real money?

To be honest, I wouldn't know where to start on income and poverty. It seems to me that there are some people doing amazingly at being parents and keeping a roof over their heads on very little while others live an impoverished life on more.

We sometimes discuss what we would do if our financial circumstances changed unexpectedly. It is very hard because most of disposable expenditure goes on our children - music lessons, instruments, other after school clubs... Music is the really expensive one, but it means a lot to all of us and we are lucky enough to be able to indulge our interest.

16k gpb single person

Interesting. I am guessing that is with no dependents, but paying rent and utilities?

Some one once pointed out to me that if you did a graph showing the difference between earnings and take home pay the worst point is about 120K a year because they lose their entire tax free allowance and don't get the old child benefit etc. I forget the figures. No one is going to feel sorry for some one on a six figure salary though!

Actually Genevieva, the EU DID make concessions to Cameron before the referendum on benefits, but it wasn't deemed acceptable (see below).

Mainland Europe and Ireland are not one country with the same social systems, all countries are special snowflakes :) The EU is based on compromise - over the years there have been lots of compromises and opt-outs for the UK given but unfortunately there is often a British attitude that the rest of EU should do what it(the UK) wants and doesn't know or care what is best for the other 27.

Also, please remember that the huge rise in EU migrants from the new accession countries was welcomed and actually pushed for by the UK government. The UK WANTED the EE countries to join and allowed them come for work years before the EU said it was necessary. Again, the crisis is greatly of your own government's making, not fair to put all the blame on the evil EU or indeed the immigrants who arrived in good faith.

^On in-work benefits: The Council would authorise that Member State to limit the access of newly arriving EU workers to non-contributory in-work benefits for a total period of up to four years from the commencement of employment. The limitation should be graduated, from an initial complete exclusion but gradually increasing access to such benefits to take account of the growing connection of the worker with the labour market of the host Member State. The authorisation would have a limited duration and apply to EU workers newly arriving during a period of 7 years.
On child benefit: A proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the coordination of social security systems in order to give Member States, with regard to the exportation of child benefits to a Member State other than that where the worker resides, an option to index such benefits to the conditions of the Member State where the child resides. This should apply only to new claims made by EU workers in the host Member State. However, as from 1 January 2020, all Member States may extend indexation to existing claims to child benefits already exported by EU workers. The Commission does not intend to propose that the future system of optional indexation of child benefits be extended to other types of exportable benefits, such as old-age pensions^

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

Lndnmummy

It is a shame, when shown a different opinion from your own, the first thing you do is reach for insults.

It says more about you, than it does about me. And really doesn't do much for your point of view

Not sure why you feel the need to mention you allegedly pay a ''higher tax bracket...''

Some one once pointed out to me that if you did a graph showing the difference between earnings and take home pay the worst point is about 120K a year because they lose their entire tax free allowance and don't get the old child benefit etc. I forget the figures. No one is going to feel sorry for some one on a six figure salary though!

Yep - it's between about 100-120k. Not only do you have these issues, but you also pay tax at about 62% on the bit between 100-120k. Once you earn over 120k, it drops back down to 40%, so you are paying more tax than someone who earns more than you. Plus, you get shafted by the child benefit thing - essentially the cut-off is higher for 2 people's combined salary than it is for 1 person.

while their poor decisions were difficult to comprehend, they were not able to make different decisions and you have to accept them for who they are. The cost to the state, in terms of benefits, housing and social services involvement is huge, but necessary. Without it more people would be destitute and the rest of us would probably have to cope with correspondingly higher crime rates.

Genevieva

Tony Blair has a lot to answer for the free movement.

aren't migrants are more likely to vote Labour? Not like Blair to have had self-interest at heart now, was it?!?

Migrants from Eastern Europe aren't likely to vote Labour.

usuallydormant

You make some excellent points. Our relationship with the EU has always been uneasy, but I think the "special snowflake" remark is a little uncalled for - the UK is very different in quite a few highly significant ways, not least our relatively low (particularly youth) unemployment, and our benefit and legal systems. Finding widespread consensus to change all our institutions to more EU-friendly versions would always have been a hard sell.

Only Switzerland - which isn't even in the EU, but has signed up to FOM, has experienced anything like the influx of immigrants that we have; and it's led to similar soul-searching there about whether it's sustainable in the longer term. They've had several referenda on the sole question of immigration.

Blair put all his faith in the financial service sector to be our industry.
The idea was to tax it and support the under employed ex industrial workers through tax credits, a Robin Hood feedback loop.
It seemed to work, his core voters were happy.
Unfortunately Brown later ramped up the payments and reduced the qualifying hours in attempt to secure re election in 2007, again it worked.
Unfortunately against a failing wordwide economy it was financial suicide, grossly unafforable.
This is where we are today, tax credits cannot be cut, too many people are reliant on them.
The real figure for unemployment would be 5 million without tax credit supported part time work.

The real figure for unemployment would be 5 million without tax credit supported part time work

^^ THIS with knobs on.

Against a backdrop of unlimited, cheap, unskilled immigration an entire generation of working people were forever tied to the teat of the State, captive voters, helpless, begging for crumbs off the table.
A client state.

Usuallydormant, what you say in paragraphs 3-5 is correct. Our government did invite people to move hear during the the transition period (before Germany did. There was no referendum on this and the government's own analysis on the number of people who would move turned out to completely underestimate what would actually happen. In theory I approve of that decision. I don't like the idea of new members being treated as if they have a second class ticket. In practice, it probably needed a little more thinking through. The first person I met to move here from Poland as a result of that opening up had a PhD and had been teaching in a university in Poland. Here he drove a delivery van. People make tough decisions when they want the best for their children. I like to think he is doing something more suitable for his level of education now. Certainly that stereotype that existed a decade ago seems to to be less demonstrably true.

The EU did offer those staggered concessions for a limited period of 7 years. A ridiculous system that would cost a fortune to calculate and manage. All it did was highlight how little control national governments have. When you have the leader of another country vetoing a decision about how British taxpayers money is spent it doesn't look good. As I said, had Cameron's request to take back control of the benefits system been accepted, the reality for EU citizens in this country would have been an almost insignificant change. It is well documented that most people come here to work and are net contributors, so there was nothing to be gained from insisting on a complicated graduated system and everything to lose. Usually good will and empathy count for than ticking all the boxes if you kep your eye on the prize that you actually want. Hence my comment about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It is well documented that most people come here to work and are net contributors

Please state your source.

It's a shame the UK cannot bill the country if their citizens are inactive in our economy and needing benefits, social housing, and translators.

And vice versa if our own citizens need benefits or housing in another EU country.

I believe that would benefit the treasury

Also if the father of the Romanian family is supposedly job seeking then there should be a time limit otherwise au revoir.

Honestly can't remember, but the newspapers at work and radio 4 were full of stats on this stuff earlier in the year - I am sure you can find it on google.

On a more personal emotional level I find it hard to believe that large numbers of people make massive life-changing decisions involving moving overseas because they want to fleece a foreign government. I really do think most people move because they think there will be more opportunities. And also, with very little idea that the cost of living is correspondingly higher.

For me personally it creates lots of internal dilemmas between wanting to be humane and encourage people with chutzpah to go after their dreams, whilst also feeling deep unease at the rate at which green fields are being built on to accommodate our ever increasing population (which was the question raised by the OP at the start of this thread.) I can't reconcile the two.

It is well documented that most people come here to work and are net contributors

The statistics up-thread paint a very different picture, i.e. the majority of EU nationals enter the country without pre-arranged employment, the natural assumption being that they therefore live in publicly funded accommodation.

Is publicly funded accommodation accommodation so easily accessible? I thought there were waiting lists and the whole system was creaking.

With the population of London going up by c.270 a day (again available on google and by doing the maths on census records) I find it hard to believe that publicly funded accommodation providers are able to find the extra beds for new arrivals on a daily basis. My guess is that most come and stay with a friend until they find their feet.

I find it hard to believe that publicly funded accommodation providers are able to find the extra beds for new arrivals on a daily basis.

Some bright spark up-thread said "we don't let children sleep on the streets in the UK." The point being, that anyone arriving in the UK with children will be given publicly funded accommodation.

Some bright spark up-thread said "we don't let children sleep on the streets in the UK." The point being, that anyone arriving in the UK with children will be given publicly funded accommodation.

I'm sorry you thought I was being a "bright spark" sob. I was just telling it like it is.

BECAUSE we don't allow children to sleep homeless on the streets in the UK, all the restrictions in the world we put on social housing and homelessness provision are functioningly meaningless when a homeless person with children comes looking for help.

Social services will have a duty to ensure the children are housed and current practice is to house the whole family in that situation if there's no other concern.

So in those specific "destitute chancer coaches it across Europe with six kids" cases, it IS child protection law that short circuits housing policy.

Then maybe the people who haven't got accommodation or a valid place to stay shouldn't be allowed entry to the UK like the USA system. You are grilled about where you are going to stay.

I don't think our social housing should be given to them.

If they're travelling on an EU passport they won't be questioned at the border at all.

I think that's the problem. The FOM doesn't work for me.