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.

Branleuse is right. It became clear from the trade talks with India recently that they require more access to visas for their citizens in return for greater access to their markets. And that will be true around the world as we attempt to replace markets

whether you think its too high or not is beside the point. If we want to trade with anywhere in the world, we and they will HAVE to accept migration to and from those countries, and without being able to trade elsewhere, the country will not be able to survive.

And if that's the case we need to start devising urgent, specific policy with that in mind. Because we will have an infrastructure problem unless we do something.

But the whole debate seems to be polarised into pro-Brexit catastrophisation and pro-Remain laisse faire.

This is really about demographic trends and public policy.

The number is way to high, in those figures around half a million of them came here with no job organised.

What I think is important is that we take back control of immigration and then we can elect parliament based on how best to handle the numbers.

What I think is important is that we take back control of immigration

People keep saying that. Tell us how you think that's possible.

supper this might help you regarding taking back control. Note: it's not possible post Brexit. Get over it.

www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/

The main thing that became clear in trade talks with India was quite how much weaker our post-Brexit negotiating position is.

It is certainly possible to negotiate free trade agreements without conceding free movement. (The EU has many such agreements.)

If you are not negotiating as a desperate supplicant that has just willingly given up and extremely strong position for a very weak one.

Suppermummy02, what do you think about the posts on this thread already about the financial benefits of immigration? Or the issues with our aging population, and the impact that will have on underfunded public services?

The financial benefits of immigration (in common with most financial benefits) are not evenly distributed.

The wealthy benefit far more and are negatively affected far less.

manumission, and noones even come close to devising that sort of stratgey. You dont get to just shut the door on the rest of the world that you want to trade with. You cant have your cake and eat it.

Our infrastructure needs funding, by getting businesses and corporations to pay their bloody taxes. Our infrastructure struggling, is nothing to do with foreigners coming here

It's a shame we didn't have a referendum about infrastructure planning instead really.

The phrasing of the question would have been negotiated for about ten years, of course.

A struggling infrastructure is obviously going to struggle further if 300,000 extra people per year are using it.

The fewer options you have for opting out of that infrastructure (ie the poorer you are) the more you will be affected.

We keep hearing about building more affordable housing but never who will have access to it.

• Isitadoubleentendre Thu 01-Dec-16 11:30:07

The very first response to this thread is exactly why Brexit happened and Trump got in. If you refuse to engage with anyone who raises any legitimate concern about the numbers of people who are coming here when there is no infrastructure in place for accommodate this, then Brexit and Trump is what you get.

Slow. Hand. Clap.*

Thanks that's exactly how I'm thinking.

The wealthy benefit far more and are negatively affected far less.

I don't disagree with you about the massive and rising problem of social inequality in our country. But I'm less clear on the negative financial effects of immigration, what they are and who they fall on. Just from this thread alone, it's clear that people think immigration is a massive drain on public services - that immigrants can only take from the economy, and not contribute towards it.

This is quite enlightening reading on what 'immigrants contribute financially to the economy' actually means: www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

"The positive net fiscal contribution of recent immigrant cohorts (those arriving since 2000) from the A10 countries amounted to almost £5bn, while the net fiscal contributions of recent European immigrants from the rest of the EU totalled £15bn. Recent non-European immigrants’ net contribution was likewise positive, at about £5bn. Over the same period, the net fiscal contribution of native UK born was negative, amounting to almost £617bn."

*DoingItFine
The financial benefits of immigration (in common with most financial benefits) are not evenly distributed.

The wealthy benefit far more and are negatively affected far less.*

But will that be true going forward. If you take away the economic benefits that migrants bring, who will lose most with the crumbling infrastructure? The lack of GPs? Increase in food prices? Not the rich; they will be insulated. It will be the same poor. Blaming migrants is a displacement activity- the real problems going forward will be an ageing population, leaving the single market (if we do) , and low productivity (which many are now attributing to the precarious working environment and poor investment in R&D/training)

But will that be true going forward.

It will be even more true going forward, sadly.

there's loads of jobs up and and since the brexit vote the polish workers have all but gone, a number of businesses are struggling to find staff and we haven't even got to the shit bit yet.

we need to start getting rid of unemployment benefit and make the lazy fuckers work

that EU immigration, to the rich, were their cleaners, au pairs, cheap plumbers; their cut-price employees willing to work under circumstances that no local should be expected to tolerate, 'reliable' in that they dare not take a day off; willing to sleep 6 to a room in a 3 bedroom terrace.

For the poor local, immigrants are the people you compete against for housing, school places, who do to a certain extent extend NHS waiting times.

Absolutely.

Our despised, supposedly racist, supposedly lazy underclass are many times more likely to have social interactions with recent immigrants, to date them, to have children with them, to know them as equals.

But they are sneered at for being racist by people who use their money and status to insulate themselves from the immigrants they are so keen to welcome.

the wealthy benefit more from bloody everything, but thats beside the point.

We all benefit from our country being able to trade, therefore not going down the shithole..

There are downsides to immigration and there are upsides, and there is also the fact that its how countries actually work, unless you think its actually feasible for us to unfuck everything thats been fucked up since all our industries were decimated and closed down and become some self sufficient, off grid, white-british-only "utopia"

It's ridiculous to say that the problem of lack of GPs means we must import them.
We are training them - where are they going????? Why won't medics be GPs?

Local paper this week said shortage in nurses is up 600 % (or similar)- why why why why why.
No don't import them. Fix the problem here. Which is imho crappy 12 hour shifts that last 13+ hours. Understaffing so any qualified nurse is over worked. Inadequate numbers being trained. No opportunity for hours to fit with homelife (see comment regarding shifts).
Improperly managed ward teams. Higher standards of care for patients so that the work is rewarding and not firefighting. Better pay.

Again incomers who find the wage several times what they earned at home is not the answer.
And GPs - don't they all work short hours and refuse to do any nights and have a v high salary - funny no one wants to do it.

A struggling infrastructure is obviously going to struggle further if 300,000 extra people per year are using it.

But that's not how it works, when the infrastructure is funded by the people using it. In that case they're not 300,000 'extra' people, any more than the taxes they're paying are 'extra' money.

Take the NHS, for example. If you add 300,000 people to the system, and they're all 80-year-olds with complex health conditions, they'll be taking more out than they're paying in. So the system will struggle. But if you add 300,000 healthy 25-year-olds, they'll be paying in more than they'll be taking out, so the system overall will benefit.

Also the immigrants themselves need healthcare.

Yes use the people already here.

The "system" benefits but that doesn't mean all the people within that system are better off.

But if you add 300,000 healthy 25-year-olds, they'll be paying in more than they'll be taking out, so the system overall will benefit

Thank God all those 25 year olds will all be put down / will be sent back when they reach their pension age and won't produce an even bigger burden in the future.
Oooerrrr maybe not such a good idea.