Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[rcoobc]

I know the housing thing is total shite but then his first house was a two up two down terrace in Eastwood Rotherham and they didn't have fridges, washing machines, cars, phones let alone mobile phones. They kept chickens in the back yard because they needed the protein from their eggs. You had to put a pot on the coal fire for hot water.

I could go on and on about the differences your generation takes for granted in your lifestyle. Its a generational divide which I guess is unbridgeable.

Hey, I'd love to have chickens! My current house is a two up, two down and has no garden whatsoever. My next house will have a tiny tiny tiny garden, and im going to grow some runner beans in pots. Im 27-30 and renting.

I can't improve the house because renting. I can't put pictures on the walls because renting. I cant do anything except basic maintenance because renting.

We have a chimney but its blocked off. Instead we rely on radiators that barely work. We have a washing machine but take our clothes to my mither in laws to dry every day because we arent allowed a drier indoors

Dont get me wrong, life is generally improving, but thats no reason to be resentful. Likewise its an extremely frustrating experience for young people. I asked my landlord if we could extend the lease so i could buy more furniture and she said they wanted us to leave at the end of our tenancy.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

That's too simplistic a view Stanley.

My school told me in no uncertain terms that if I didn't go to uni I would be stuck in a low paying job for the rest of my life.

We had people come round and gave us a presentation about going to Uni vs not going to Uni. There were big slides showing how much less the people not going to Uni would earn, even factoring in the student loans and loss of earnings. When I spoke to my teacher about my misgivings in going to University (more to do with my chosen degree) I was told I needed to go because otherwise I would waste my life and my potential.

In hindsight it's a sick joke.

You expect the majority of 17 year olds to have everything worked out? It's not a personal choice at all, it's a societal choice.

I'm nearly 30 and still haven't worked it out.

Imagine you started work at 15 and when you got to 18 they made you join the army for two years and stationed you in Germany with the Royal artillary.

National service you had no choice about going to university you very clearly do have a choice about

 

[devilish]

Sometimes he is some times he's a stubborn old goat.

He doesn't want hardship to continue but he isn't enamored with the idea that the present generation has it so much harder because he thinks you really don't.

He was almost three years old when the second world war broke out and didn't get to eat a banana until rationing ended when he was about fouteen. Trust me when I say you are not winning the hardship debate with him.

I was raised in such conditions (not banana but other things like decent chocolate, decent toothpaste etc). Let me share a little secret with you. If others around you dont have it then you wont miss it..

I think the young generation here got a raw deal. The property is prohibitively expensive same as tertiary education and rent. Add brexit, the end of the nhs and the same work conditions of the US and things will get worse. Oh well they can still eat bananas

 

[rcoobc]

Imagine you started work at 15 and when you got to 18 they made you join the army for two years and stationed you in Germany with the Royal artillary.

National service you had no choice about going to university you very clearly do have a choice about

True. I'm not saying there is "no choice" not to go to university, but the reason kids go to Uni is a societal one. Unless my kids know exactly what they want to do, (doctor, lawyer, etc) and need to go to uni to do it then I won't send them.

National Service... Yeah I'm glad that's gone to be honest. I'd make a quip about at least you earn some money rather than pay thousands of pounds...

But yeah glad its gone

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

True. I'm not saying there is "no choice" not to go to university, but the reason kids go to Uni is a societal one. Unless my kids know exactly what they want to do, (doctor, lawyer, etc) and need to go to uni to do it then I won't send them.

National Service... Yeah I'm glad that's gone to be honest. I'd make a quip about at least you earn some money rather than pay thousands of pounds...

But yeah glad its gone

My dad hated every single moment from basic training on. He said he had nightmares that the govt extended it which they could if there was an emergency. Germany wasn't the worst place you could end up either although with the whole cold war thing going on it was quite risky.

The money was very poor and he had just got on to full pay in the steel plant when they conscripted him. He was supporting his family as the main earner at the time as my grand father had MS and was in a wheel chair. His youngest sister was deaf and blind after contracting scarlet fever as a baby which meant all his pay went home, they called that tipping up believe.

 

[rcoobc]

To get back on topic, I think the stupidest thing about the Brexiters vs Remainers debate is the lack of any middle ground.

- Free Movement of People (Wanted by Remain)
- Reducing Immigration (Wanted by Leavers)
- Preventing the reduction of wages (Wanted by the Left)
- Taking back sovereignty (wanted by the Right)

There is no reason you can't have all 4 of those things at once, and more.

All sides need to compromise.

 

[rcoobc]

My dad hated every single moment from basic training on. He said he had nightmares that the govt extended it which they could if there was an emergency. Germany wasn't the worst place you could end up either although with the whole cold war thing going on it was quite risky.

The money was very poor and he had just got on to full pay in the steel plant when they conscripted him. He was supporting his family as the main earner at the time as my grand father had MS and was in a wheel chair. His youngest sister was deaf and blind after contracting scarlet fever as a baby which meant all his pay went home, they called that tipping up believe.

Yeah, I'm glad that's gone. I don't thing young people can compete with the 70 year old in hardship battles.

50 year olds on the other hand

 

[devilish]

It seems im not the only one sharing these views

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...l-europe-clean-break-fractious-talks-brussels

 

[Jippy]

My dad hated every single moment from basic training on. He said he had nightmares that the govt extended it which they could if there was an emergency. Germany wasn't the worst place you could end up either although with the whole cold war thing going on it was quite risky.

The money was very poor and he had just got on to full pay in the steel plant when they conscripted him. He was supporting his family as the main earner at the time as my grand father had MS and was in a wheel chair. His youngest sister was deaf and blind after contracting scarlet fever as a baby which meant all his pay went home, they called that tipping up believe.

In contrast, my father loved his national service. He was stationed out in what was then Malaya with the RAF in the early 1950s. His only regret was that his poor eyesight prevented him from being able to train as a pilot.

 

[IWat]

To get back on topic, I think the stupidest thing about the Brexiters vs Remainers debate is the lack of any middle ground.

- Free Movement of People (Wanted by Remain)
- Reducing Immigration (Wanted by Leavers)
- Preventing the reduction of wages (Wanted by the Left)
- Taking back sovereignty (wanted by the Right)

There is no reason you can't have all 4 of those things at once, and more.

All sides need to compromise.

The problem is, you can't really. Cameron tried to get reduced immigration while staying within the EU and they spat in his face. You also can't stay within the single market while removing yourself from the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I really wish there was a tier of membership where you could be part of the trading bloc, agree to certain rules about products and competition etc, opt-in to things like the research schemes etc and forgo this fetish Brussels have for making it this huge political orgy. There are plenty of trading blocs and custom unions that don't have nor want this layer of political rubbish.

 

[NinjaFletch]

The problem is, you can't really. Cameron tried to get reduced immigration while staying within the EU and they spat in his face. You also can't stay within the single market while removing yourself from the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I really wish there was a tier of membership where you could be part of the trading bloc, agree to certain rules about products and competition etc, opt-in to things like the research schemes etc and forgo this fetish Brussels have for making it this huge political orgy. There are plenty of trading blocs and custom unions that don't have nor want this layer of political rubbish.

They really didn't though, they gave him concessions which were never put in to practice because of the Leave vote. Maybe they wouldn't have been enough, maybe they would have, but to argue that he got nothing is the height of Leave campaign wankery.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

 

[IWat]

They really didn't though, they gave him concessions which were never put in to practice because of the Leave vote. Maybe they wouldn't have been enough, maybe they would have, but to argue that he got nothing is the height of Leave campaign wankery.

None of the concessions in anyway gave the UK the ability to reduce immigration though did they? They put some limits on when people coming could claim welfare, a lot of which would only have been in effect for 7 years. That's not what was asked for, that's not even a compromise, it gave the UK no means by which to reduce EU immigration.

 

[NinjaFletch]

None of the concessions in anyway gave the UK the ability to reduce immigration though did they? They put some limits on when people coming could claim welfare, a lot of which would only have been in effect for 7 years. That's not what was asked for, that's not even a compromise, it gave the UK no means by which to reduce EU immigration.

As far as I am aware Cameron never sought a deal on the reduction of the number of migrants so the failure to achieve this can't be laid at the foot of the EU. At any rate, even if he had done, he was offered significant concessions on virtually all areas where they were sought; in one case the EU went beyond what was initially asked. To describe what he was given as 'a spit in the face' is demonstrably untrue.

You may argue, perhaps with some justification, that Cameron did not go far enough in what he asked for. You may equally argue that he didn't do this because he knew the EU wouldn't agree to it, but you can't criticise the EU for not giving Britain what it hadn't asked for.

 

[Kentonio]

None of the concessions in anyway gave the UK the ability to reduce immigration though did they? They put some limits on when people coming could claim welfare, a lot of which would only have been in effect for 7 years. That's not what was asked for, that's not even a compromise, it gave the UK no means by which to reduce EU immigration.

Oh for goodness sake, the U.K. Already HAD the power to massively reduce non-EU immigration and to clamp down on EU immigration and chose to never use it. So please spare me from this 'it was the EUs fault!' crap. Successive U.K. governments have been right at the forefront of pushing EU agenda and then coming home and lying to the public about it, using the EU as a convenient scapegoat instead of just explaining why they thought their decisions were the right ones.

 

[IWat]

As far as I am aware Cameron never sought a deal on the reduction of the number of migrants so the failure to achieve this can't be laid at the foot of the EU. At any rate, even if he had done, he was offered significant concessions on virtually all areas where they were sought; in one case the EU went beyond what was initially asked. To describe what he was given as 'a spit in the face' is demonstrably untrue.

You may argue, perhaps with some justification, that Cameron did not go far enough in what he asked for. You may equally argue that he didn't do this because he knew the EU wouldn't agree to it, but you can't criticise the EU for not giving Britain what it hadn't asked for.

You have a point, but from my understanding of what I read, Cameron didn't ask for it because it was basically a non-starter. The idea was to try put off EU immigration by making the welfare system less attractive, but the vast majority of what was agreed there was timebound and had an expiry where it would have returned to normal.

A lot of what he asked for, was pretty much rubbish, I agree that Cameron was far too weak, what he got/went for was in no way going to satisfy people.

- Being able to opt out of further integration - Britain, like every other country, had a veto on treaty change, further integration involving Britain couldn't have happened without Britain's approval regardless
- Migrants and welfare - Much of what was agreed was time limited, not a permanent solution
- Eurozone issues - Again, such decisions would/will likely require treaty change and not be something the EU parliament could do unilaterally, again meaning Britain could have stopped this or forced for it to be removed regardless of the negotiations
- Competitiveness - Vague text that there will be an attempt for feasible burden reduction - No actual explanation or description of even potential ways in which it would be done.

Oh for goodness sake, the U.K. Already HAD the power to massively reduce non-EU immigration and to clamp down on EU immigration and chose to never use it. So please spare me from this 'it was the EUs fault!' crap. Successive U.K. governments have been right at the forefront of pushing EU agenda and then coming home and lying to the public about it, using the EU as a convenient scapegoat instead of just explaining why they thought their decisions were the right ones.

What power is that?

 

[JPRouve]

The problem is, you can't really. Cameron tried to get reduced immigration while staying within the EU and they spat in his face. You also can't stay within the single market while removing yourself from the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I really wish there was a tier of membership where you could be part of the trading bloc, agree to certain rules about products and competition etc, opt-in to things like the research schemes etc and forgo this fetish Brussels have for making it this huge political orgy. There are plenty of trading blocs and custom unions that don't have nor want this layer of political rubbish.

You basically don't want to be part of this trading bloc which is fine.

Edit: British welfare have nothing to do with the EU.

 

[IWat]

You basically don't want to be part of this trading bloc which is fine.

Edit: British welfare have nothing to do with the EU.

Actually EU residents entitlement to welfare when in Britain does come under EU legislation http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-13_en.htm

 

[NinjaFletch]

You have a point, but from my understanding of what I read, Cameron didn't ask for it because it was basically a non-starter. The idea was to try put off EU immigration by making the welfare system less attractive, but the vast majority of what was agreed there was timebound and had an expiry where it would have returned to normal.

A lot of what he asked for, was pretty much rubbish, I agree that Cameron was far too weak, what he got/went for was in no way going to satisfy people.

- Being able to opt out of further integration - Britain, like every other country, had a veto on treaty change, further integration involving Britain couldn't have happened without Britain's approval regardless
- Migrants and welfare - Much of what was agreed was time limited, not a permanent solution
- Eurozone issues - Again, such decisions would/will likely require treaty change and not be something the EU parliament could do unilaterally, again meaning Britain could have stopped this or forced for it to be removed regardless of the negotiations
- Competitiveness - Vague text that there will be an attempt for feasible burden reduction - No actual explanation or description of even potential ways in which it would be done.


What power is that?

We're arguing about a counterfactual which we can't ever get to the heart I suspect. I think we agree though that the real criticism here lies with Cameron – although perhaps for different reasons. He badly misjudged the public mood sought a series of concessions that made him look weak (although I suspect would have achieved far more than you would allow), gave ammunition to the EU's detractors (who bent the truth to fit the narrative), and ultimately painted himself as a reluctant remainer who struggled to make a positive case for the EU.

 

[JPRouve]

Actually EU residents entitlement to welfare when in Britain does come under EU legislation http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-13_en.htm

You read the article? It's about the determination of the residence, not the actual welfare. If the UK wants to have non attractive welfare it's on them but logically they can't discriminate their own residents, nationals or non-nationals.

 

[rcoobc]

The problem is, you can't really. Cameron tried to get reduced immigration while staying within the EU and they spat in his face. You also can't stay within the single market while removing yourself from the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I really wish there was a tier of membership where you could be part of the trading bloc, agree to certain rules about products and competition etc, opt-in to things like the research schemes etc and forgo this fetish Brussels have for making it this huge political orgy. There are plenty of trading blocs and custom unions that don't have nor want this layer of political rubbish.

You can! It's easy! Maybe not within the strict rules of the European Union, but free movement doesn't depend on that. We can allow European nationals to live here permanently without the EU getting involved. And we can reduce immigration whilst doing it. How?

Keep "free" movement, but make the Personal Allowance something that is earned over time; not an automatic right.

Anyone from Europe can come to work here, but they would be paying a high level of tax, so wage deflation would be much less of a thing. And of course, because someone previously earning £18,000 a year would take home only £11k instead of £15.5k, immigration would be reduced. You can make certain vital jobs like Doctors, Nurses and Scientists automatically get the Personal Allowance, and even extend that to cherry pickers if you want...

Now before the Left jump on me as saying this is "modern slavery"; it's surely better than having a red-line "NO YOU CANT WORK OR LIVE HERE".

This is how the Left and Right has to come together to sort this mess out. Keep "Free" movement, but reduce the incentive for low wage (depreciating wage) workers to do so.

And whilst we are at it, why not open up free movement to the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere? Increase the labour pool from 750 million, to over a billion. Cut red tape - allow employers to bring in workers from all these countries without needing to complete complicated Visas!

The UK Tax system is one of the most robust in the world. We don't need to create entire departments to sort out who can work here and who can't. Let the markets decide!!!

 

[IWat]

We're arguing about a counterfactual which we can't ever get to the heart I suspect. I think we agree though that the real criticism here lies with Cameron – although perhaps for different reasons. He badly misjudged the public mood sought a series of concessions that made him look weak (although I suspect would have achieved far more than you would allow), gave ammunition to the EU's detractors (who bent the truth to fit the narrative), and ultimately painted himself as a reluctant remainer who struggled to make a positive case for the EU.

Aye, I agree Cameron handled the whole situation in an awful fashion. I lay most of the blame on people like Brown and other former Prime Ministers though, who signed us up to treaty change with no referendum and basically caused the situation for Cameron where he was caught between a rock and a hard place with the UK having been signed up for something the majority of the population didn't want. I also hold the EU in distain for the fact they know full well that these treaty changes that have turned the organisation from the Common Market into what it is now were never voted on by the British people, heck I don't think it was even in party manifesto's. When things like the Maastricht Treaty were introduced it should really have been handled differently by the UK, who then held all the cards. A position of we are very happy to trade with you, we are very happy to make it easier for EU citizens to come to the UK, we're very happy to contribute to a budget, to agree to participate and fund things like the ESA and to participate in agreements where we share information and research . What we're not happy to do is to have it dictated that we can't put limits on immigration if we wish, to allow the ECJ power over UK civil matters, only to be arbiters for disputes between countries or for policy to be decided by a EU parliament and not by elected domestic officials of the member countries. That to me would have been a cracking organisation that a referendum wouldn't have even come about over.

You read the article? It's about the determination of the residence, not the actual welfare. If the UK wants to have non attractive welfare it's on them but logically they can't discriminate their own residents, nationals or non-nationals.

That's the entire point, not that I paticularly agree with the logic of it. The UK wanted EU nationals to have spent more time in the country paying into the system before they were entitled to claim the same benefits British citizens are entitled to as a way to attempt to stem in the inflow since Britain actually being able to limit the amount of people coming wasn't ever going to work within the EU. The ability to do that is governed by the EU at present.

 

[IWat]

You can! It's easy! Maybe not within the strict rules of the European Union, but free movement doesn't depend on that. We can allow European nationals to live here permanently without the EU getting involved. And we can reduce immigration whilst doing it. How?

Keep "free" movement, but make the Personal Allowance something that is earned over time; not an automatic right.

Anyone from Europe can come to work here, but they would be paying a high level of tax, so wage deflation would be much less of a thing. And of course, because someone previously earning £18,000 a year would take home only £11k instead of £15.5k, immigration would be reduced. You can make certain vital jobs like Doctors, Nurses and Scientists automatically get the Personal Allowance, and even extend that to cherry pickers if you want...

Now before the Left jump on me as saying this is "modern slavery"; it's surely better than having a red-line "NO YOU CANT WORK OR LIVE HERE".

This is how the Left and Right has to come together to sort this mess out. Keep "Free" movement, but reduce the incentive for low wage (depreciating wage) workers to do so.

And whilst we are at it, why not open up free movement to the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere? Increase the labour pool from 750 million, to over a billion. Cut red tape - allow employers to bring in workers from all these countries without needing to complete complicated Visas!

The UK Tax system is one of the most robust in the world. We don't need to create entire departments to sort out who can work here and who can't. Let the markets decide!!!

I agree that would probably have been helpful, but as JPRouve said, the UK within the EU could not discriminate between British and EU citizen's on things like the personal allowance without the EU's agreement, which it doesn't seem they wanted to give on a permanent basis.

 

[rcoobc]

I agree that would probably have been helpful, but as JPRouve said, the UK within the EU could not discriminate between British and EU citizen's on things like the personal allowance without the EU's agreement, which it doesn't seem they wanted to give on a permanent basis.

Yeah probably not possible within the EU (maybe, taxations is a sovereign issue, but its arguable...so lets assume not).

Also, taxing eu nationals (not discriminately, everyone else would be taxed like that too) in such a way would almost certainly result in receprical taxation.

But that would actually be good.

 

[IWat]

Yeah probably not possible within the EU (maybe, taxations is a sovereign issue, but its arguable...so lets assume not).

Also, taxing eu nationals (not discriminately, everyone else would be taxed like that too) in such a way would almost certainly result in receprical taxation.

But that would actually be good.

I have no real problem with immigration, my issue is that it seems obvious to me that a country should be able to control and manage that inflow to a reasonable extent. The UK needs immigration, we have skills shortages. It is just in my mind plainly obvious that if a country has a saturation in certain jobs or industries that it should be able to turn people away, because otherwise you end up with wage depression with a bigger demand for jobs in certain areas with not enough supply to employ everyone. It just seemed absurd to me that during the financial crisis, as unemployment went up and we didn't have enough jobs as it was, that the goverment couldn't limit the amount of people coming to seek work.

I also don't see why there should be one set or rules for EU nationals and one set for the rest of the world when coming to the UK. And I don't see why I should get special treatment if I decided to go set up shop in France compared to someone from India.

The problem really surfaced when the EU started to include ex-Soviet bloc countries. I have nothing against them, but there was a clear difference in wages and economic conditions between countries such as the UK, France, Germany etc and them. If you added for example Canada into the EU, then you keep everything in balanace, there are some specific jobs such as oil/gas that Canada has more of, there are more jobs in professional services etc that the UK has. Wages and welfare are roughly similar so you won't expect a one way exodus from one country to another. But the Soviet-bloc countries created a pretty much exclusively one directional flow on a scale that has rarely been seen in peace time Europe. It was a horrible cock up by the EU, and a horrible cock up by the UK to consent. Pretty much any 1st year undergrad economics textbook will have in it under criteria for efficient single market operation "Minimal disparity in income and levels of state welfare."

 

[JPRouve]

That's the entire point, not that I paticularly agree with the logic of it. The UK wanted EU nationals to have spent more time in the country paying into the system before they were entitled to claim the same benefits British citizens are entitled to as a way to attempt to stem in the inflow since Britain actually being able to limit the amount of people coming wasn't ever going to work within the EU. The ability to do that is governed by the EU at present.

EU citizens aren't entitled to benefits until they are permanent residents though which is 5 years, before that they can be deported on the ground that they are a burden on the welfare system.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36449974

 

[rcoobc]

I have no real problem with immigration, my issue is that it seems obvious to me that a country should be able to control and manage that inflow to a reasonable extent. The UK needs immigration, we have skills shortages. It is just in my mind plainly obvious that if a country has a saturation in certain jobs or industries that it should be able to turn people away, because otherwise you end up with wage depression with a bigger demand for jobs in certain areas with not enough supply to employ everyone. It just seemed absurd to me that during the financial crisis, as unemployment went up and we didn't have enough jobs as it was, that the goverment couldn't limit the amount of people coming to seek work.

I also don't see why there should be one set or rules for EU nationals and one set for the rest of the world when coming to the UK. And I don't see why I should get special treatment if I decided to go set up shop in France compared to someone from India.

The problem really surfaced when the EU started to include ex-Soviet bloc countries. I have nothing against them, but there was a clear difference in wages and economic conditions between countries such as the UK, France, Germany etc and them. If you added for example Canada into the EU, then you keep everything in balanace, there are some specific jobs such as oil/gas that Canada has more of, there are more jobs in professional services etc that the UK has. Wages and welfare are roughly similar so you won't expect a one way exodus from one country to another. But the Soviet-bloc countries created a pretty much exclusively one directional flow on a scale that has rarely been seen in peace time Europe. It was a horrible cock up by the EU, and a horrible cock up by the UK to consent. Pretty much any 1st year undergrad economics textbook will have in it under criteria for efficient single market operation "Minimal disparity in income and levels of state welfare."

I mostly agree with the bit in bold, and disagree with the bit in red.

The problem is, its rarely "managed" well. Take the example of Shane Ridge. Here is someone who was born here, grew up here, went to school here, works here, British parents.... And hes asked to leave. Why? Because the government thought his grandmum wasnt British when she gave birth to his mum, so she wasn't British at the time, so he wasnt British.

What, the, feck.

Forget that it turned out to be an error; he is actually British, because his grandmum was, why does that matter? Hes as British as you or I!

No. The government cannot run immigration like that. Its impossible. There are too many fringe cases.

The best option is to use taxation to make immigration either economical or not. You can have every individual case being checked or you break up familes

 

[IWat]

My understanding is that without the emergency brake, EU citizens providing they have a legit prospect of finding work and have shown themselves to be living here were entitled to working tax credit, child tax credit, child benefit and housing benefit if they were employed. http://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-03/what-benefits-can-eu-migrants-claim/

Like I said, I see holes in the logic. It seems much fairer and more logical for EU countries to have the ability if they have saturation in specific jobs or industries to simply stop people coming looking for work in those areas instead of having to fiddle around with the taxation and benefits system which is unfair on others. You can even have the ECJ look at the data to ensure countries are simply not playing the system. If someone comes here to be a nurse, a profession we need people in and gets sick after a few months then I am all for them receiving sickness benefits during their illness etc. If someone comes trying to get a job in an area that is seeing wage stagnation and is on the verge of seeing a rise in unemployment, I really don't see why they should be paid JSA etc, or even be allowed in the first place.

I mostly agree with the bit in bold, and disagree with the bit in red.

The problem is, its rarely "managed" well. Take the example of Shane Ridge. Here is someone who was born here, grew up here, went to school here, works here, British parents.... And hes asked to leave. Why? Because the government thought his grandmum wasnt British when she gave birth to his mum, so she wasn't British at the time, so he wasnt British.

What, the, feck.

Forget that it turned out to be an error; he is actually British, because his grandmum was, why does that matter? Hes as British as you or I!

No. The government cannot run immigration like that. Its impossible. There are too many fringe cases.

The best option is to use taxation to make immigration either economical or not. You can have every individual case being checked or you break up familes

Yes, the Shane Ridge thing is stupid. I'm in no way advocating for something that harsh. I guess I am maybe looking at it through the lens that we'd have competent goverment and civil service capable of managing it properly and effectively. People that are already here, are already here. I'm not saying to go back through everyone and analyse if they should be able to stay.

Australia and a number of other countries have systems that looks at if a person coming to the country has skills in areas that the country requires as part of applying, it's not impossible to implement.

 

[Mozza]

None of the concessions in anyway gave the UK the ability to reduce immigration though did they? They put some limits on when people coming could claim welfare, a lot of which would only have been in effect for 7 years. That's not what was asked for, that's not even a compromise, it gave the UK no means by which to reduce EU immigration.

At what point does a migrant become entitled to welfare? Are they supposed to work in this nation but never be granted the same rights as natives? Not exactly fair is it to forever be a second class citizen.

The Tories never defended migration, came up with an arbitrary target for numbers and then expected the EU to play along with their politics to satisfy racists.

 

[Mozza]

You can! It's easy! Maybe not within the strict rules of the European Union, but free movement doesn't depend on that. We can allow European nationals to live here permanently without the EU getting involved. And we can reduce immigration whilst doing it. How?

Keep "free" movement, but make the Personal Allowance something that is earned over time; not an automatic right.

Anyone from Europe can come to work here, but they would be paying a high level of tax, so wage deflation would be much less of a thing. And of course, because someone previously earning £18,000 a year would take home only £11k instead of £15.5k, immigration would be reduced. You can make certain vital jobs like Doctors, Nurses and Scientists automatically get the Personal Allowance, and even extend that to cherry pickers if you want...

Now before the Left jump on me as saying this is "modern slavery"; it's surely better than having a red-line "NO YOU CANT WORK OR LIVE HERE".

This is how the Left and Right has to come together to sort this mess out. Keep "Free" movement, but reduce the incentive for low wage (depreciating wage) workers to do so.

And whilst we are at it, why not open up free movement to the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere? Increase the labour pool from 750 million, to over a billion. Cut red tape - allow employers to bring in workers from all these countries without needing to complete complicated Visas!

The UK Tax system is one of the most robust in the world. We don't need to create entire departments to sort out who can work here and who can't. Let the markets decide!!!

That's unfair. Also the Whiteosphere, another shit idea

 

[rcoobc]

Yes, the Shane Ridge thing is stupid. I'm in no way advocating for something that harsh. I guess I am maybe looking at it through the lens that we'd have competent goverment and civil service capable of managing it properly and effectively. People that are already here, are already here. I'm not saying to go back through everyone and analyse if they should be able to stay.

Australia and a number of other countries have systems that looks at if a person coming to the country has skills in areas that the country requires as part of applying, it's not impossible to implement.

The points based system isn't by any means terrible, but it is quite complicated.

Australia spends a huge amount of money on immigration prevention (largely due to the offshore detention program), and then there are a huge number of different Visas you need for different things. (2) (3)

Why does it need to be that complicated? I'm a believe in a small government (as small as possible whilst still giving us everything we need). How big is the department that sorts out who can live here and who cannot going to be?

- Will an EU Citizen living in the UK now, who goes away for 6 months, be allowed to return?
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to keep his UK born children here?
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to keep his non-UK born children here?
- Will an EU Citizen who marries a British citizen, takes his family abroad for 3 years, then returns to the UK, be allowed to come with them?
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to bring his foreign wife to the UK, if he earns enough money?

10% of the population in the UK are not British, and 14% of the population were not born here. 3 million people live here are EU Citizens. There are far too many fringe cases, to run immigration by looking at each case individually.

Now to be fair, Australias immigrant population far exceeds are own as a percentage (27% vs 15%)

But why does it have to be this complicated? We are putting off EU Doctors and Nurses, and making them want to leave.

Why not keep "free" movement, but create a tax system that runs the immigration system for us.

 

[rcoobc]

That's unfair. Also the Whiteosphere, another shit idea

Someone from the Left will think it's unfair, and someone from the Right will think it's not enough.

That's compromise.

And yeah I did choose those countries because they are the English speaking ones the likes of Dan Hannan usually bring up, but I'd happily extend it to the 40 other democratic western countries that have a GDP per Capita of say half the UK Average.

 

[IWat]

At what point does a migrant become entitled to welfare? Are they supposed to work in this nation but never be granted the same rights as natives? Not exactly fair is it to forever be a second class citizen.

The Tories never defended migration, came up with an arbitrary target for numbers and then expected the EU to play along with their politics to satisfy racists.

In my opinion, providing they have come to work in a job that the economy is in demand for, then they should have full access within a relatively short period of time. If they have come to apply for jobs we have an over-subscription for, they shouldn't be allowed in to work in the first place.

The points based system isn't by any means terrible, but it is quite complicated.

Australia spends a huge amount of money on immigration prevention (largely due to the offshore detention program), and then there are a huge number of different Visas you need for different things. (2) (3)

Why does it need to be that complicated? I'm a believe in a small government (as small as possible whilst still giving us everything we need). How big is the department that sorts out who can live here and who cannot going to be?

- Will an EU Citizen living in the UK now, who goes away for 6 months, be allowed to return?
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to keep his UK born children here?
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to keep his non-UK born children here?
- Will an EU Citizen who marries a British citizen, takes his family abroad for 3 years, then returns to the UK, be allowed to come with them?
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to bring his foreign wife to the UK, if he earns enough money?

10% of the population in the UK are not British, and 14% of the population were not born here. 3 million people live here are EU Citizens. There are far too many fringe cases, to run immigration by looking at each case individually.

Now to be fair, Australias immigrant population far exceeds are own as a percentage (27% vs 15%)

But why does it have to be this complicated? We are putting off EU Doctors and Nurses, and making them want to leave.

Why not keep "free" movement, but create a tax system that runs the immigration system for us.

This is entirely my opinion.

- Will an EU Citizen living in the UK now, who goes away for 6 months, be allowed to return? - Yes providing they apply for the status that the goverment are proposing for existing EU citizens in the UK.
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to keep his UK born children here? - Yes.
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to keep his non-UK born children here? - Yes providing the type of work they are looking for is the type you can support children on. They could apply for citizenship after the required time period or would face the same restrictions when an adult.
- Will an EU Citizen who marries a British citizen, takes his family abroad for 3 years, then returns to the UK, be allowed to come with them? - Yes.
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to bring his foreign wife to the UK, if he earns enough money? - Providing he has the money to support her and she isn't looking for work in an area of the economy that is oversubscribed, I don't see a problem.

The thing with taxation is you end up having to do a lot of the same catagorisation when it comes to the jobs the economy needs also.

Another point, the average household income in Poland for example is roughly £13.75k, would removal of certain tax benefits really still make it an uneconomical decision?

 

[Kentonio]

What power is that?

The unrestricted power to do whatever the hell we pleased with non-EU immigration, and the power to enforce rules such as 3 months without a job and you have to leave for EU immigrants. Which we never bothered enforcing.

 

[JPRouve]

@IWat Why the obsession with EU citizens, do you think that they are a burden?

 

[IWat]

@IWat Why the obsession with EU citizens, do you think that they are a burden?

No. But in an unrestricted, imbalanced system elements can be, and this goes both ways, not just for people coming to the UK. From the Migration Observatory at Oxford Univesity http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ngs/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/

The impacts of immigration on the labour market critically depend on the skills of migrants, the skills of existing workers, and the characteristics of the host economy.

All my suggestions would do is make the system more effective at doing that, not sure how you can draw I think EU citizens as a collective are some kind of burden from that?

 

[rcoobc]

Another point, the average household income in Poland for example is roughly £13.75k, would removal of certain tax benefits really still make it an uneconomical decision?

We don't want to make it uneconomical for everyone, we just want to reduce the downward pressure on wages. Someone earning £20k in Poland will probably have a much better lifestyle than someone earning £20k in the UK.

GDP per Capita (nominal) in the UK - £42,481
GDP per Capita (nominal) in Poland - £12,316
GDP per Capita (PPP) in the UK - £40,096
GDP per Capita (PPP) in Poland - £27,764

(all numbers from wikipedia)

So although GDP per Capita (which although is not the same as the average wage, is still a useful metric) is 3.44 times lower, it only "feels" like being 1.44 times lower - due to house prices, price of goods, etc.

So if an Eastern European worker was earning £18,720 in the UK (minimum wage at the maximum 48 hours per week), their take home pay would be £16011. If we say, that their rent and living costs were £10k, then they'd be left with £6k to save and take home.

Would removing the personal income tax allowance and personal national insurance allowance for people just entering the UK (you'd earn them back over time) really make a difference.. yes I think it would make a huge difference, reducing the take home pay to just £12.5k and realistically making them better off working in Eastern Europe (earn less, but it would be a much better standard of living).

 

[JPRouve]

No. But in an unrestricted, imbalanced system elements can be, and this goes both ways, not just for people coming to the UK. From the Migration Observatory at Oxford Univesity http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ngs/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration/



All my suggestions would do is make the system more effective at doing that, not sure how you can draw I think EU citizens as a collective are some kind of burden from that?

But that's why I'm asking you:

It found that non-EU immigration was associated with a reduction in the employment of UK-born workers during 1995-2010. No statistically significant effects were found for EU immigration.

The article somehow target non EU immigrants.

 

[rcoobc]

The point is

Creating a "Red Line" where we say; you can't work here, and you can't work here because you are Polish, and you are Italian... that's stupid and it's wrong.

At the same time, there are tens of thousands of families, maybe more, being split up because of the UK rules requiring them to earn £18,000-£25,000 to bring their husband or wife to this country. That isn't some far off future, that is here right now. It's one rule for the rich, and another rule for the poor.

(1) (2)

And families wanting to join their loved ones may have to pay excruciating fees

At the same time, English speaking people from other Western countries may find it difficult to come work here.

We need a system that isn't complicated, and doesn't cost tonnes of money, and doesn't stop families being together.

A taxation system works

 

[Mozza]

In my opinion, providing they have come to work in a job that the economy is in demand for, then they should have full access within a relatively short period of time. If they have come to apply for jobs we have an over-subscription for, they shouldn't be allowed in to work in the first place.



This is entirely my opinion.

- Will an EU Citizen living in the UK now, who goes away for 6 months, be allowed to return? - Yes providing they apply for the status that the goverment are proposing for existing EU citizens in the UK.
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to keep his UK born children here? - Yes.
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to keep his non-UK born children here? - Yes providing the type of work they are looking for is the type you can support children on. They could apply for citizenship after the required time period or would face the same restrictions when an adult.
- Will an EU Citizen who marries a British citizen, takes his family abroad for 3 years, then returns to the UK, be allowed to come with them? - Yes.
- Will an EU Citizen be allowed to bring his foreign wife to the UK, if he earns enough money? - Providing he has the money to support her and she isn't looking for work in an area of the economy that is oversubscribed, I don't see a problem.

The thing with taxation is you end up having to do a lot of the same catagorisation when it comes to the jobs the economy needs also.

Another point, the average household income in Poland for example is roughly £13.75k, would removal of certain tax benefits really still make it an uneconomical decision?

So if you fall in love with someone who works in an oversubscribed area you are shit out of luck, great system, really shows your humanity.

 

[Mozza]

Someone from the Left will think it's unfair, and someone from the Right will think it's not enough.

That's compromise.

And yeah I did choose those countries because they are the English speaking ones the likes of Dan Hannan usually bring up, but I'd happily extend it to the 40 other democratic western countries that have a GDP per Capita of say half the UK Average.

No its unfair regardless of your political leaning, the right winger just doesn't give a feck that it is.

He picks them because they are full of white people