The GDP percentage increase due to immigration is half a percentage point lower than the percentage increase in population growth so immigration doesn't fully pay it's way. The same study concluded that the low end wages are further suppressed and higher end wages increased, this fuelling the poor/rich divide. I personally consider the issue of trying to resolve the poverty of British people more important than foreigners. I'm for controlled immigration, an Australian and New Zealand system based on visas and points. So by all means issue visas for doctors and nurses but none for pizza makers and sponge car washers.
Only for a very narrow definition of "paying its way" - though without any link to the study, it's difficult to say how good, bad or indifferent that study is. Other studies clearly show that EU immigration has a significant net benefit to the UK: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e250df6dbba Again, without any kind of link to the study, it's difficult to assess how good, bad or indifferent it is. The LSE concluded that EU immigration did not have a negative impact on wages: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf The UK could have that system for more than 50% of its immigration, the non-EU immigration, but for some reason has chosen not to.
The only trouble is, you're going down the route that immigration has benefitted the UK but you're just talking money. Try talking about crime, social and cultural issues. Not very beneficial is it? I don't think Rotherham will support your idea that immigration has benefitted them when thousands of their daughters were raped. I think you need to consider the wider picture and not just 10%. Let's have a little less money but a much safer community. How much NHS time is used up for knife crime!
Immigrants have lower level of criminality than native-born Britains, EU citizens especially so. Irrelevant in the context of EU immigration. I am. The benefits of immigration go far beyond simple financial considerations. A tiny proportion compared to the time and resources dealing with more mundane things like geriatric issues and issues relating to smoking, alcohol and diabetes. It's also not clear what beneficial effect being out of the EU would have on knife crime.
Maybe I was confusing you with someone else who has come on more recently. If I was and you are not as I suggested my apologies. A video for the Brexiters
In what respect ? In the case of this thread and my recent responses to you, I'm trying to counter the anti-immigrant rhetoric which could have come straight out of the Daily Mail or Daily Express with some facts.
Ok, just wondered if you trying to make others into a copy of you, to have your beliefs. I don't read newspapers, just studies commissioned by the government and by psychologists.
Count on it! You (pluraL) are cutting the trade umbilical cord with you major trading partner (the EU): What the above image does not show is the aggregation of exports into the EU! In the above picture of exports fully £124.5B go into the EU ...
The trade-bit of the equation is what will hit GB the hardest. They're actually having a good year economically, this year, which will come to an abrupt end. Time will tell. It always does ...
Well, it is and it isn't, depending upon from where you are writing. Lesser trade between the UK and the EU will hurt both. But more the UK than the EU who are prepared to spend more time developing trade internally. That will be the easy part, because those trade-patterns exist presently. So much of the hardship due to the UK trade-loss will be internal to the UK because regardless of whether they try to recuperate that loss in the future, it is gone, gone, gone. New trade patterns internal to the EU will develop and the trade will simply continue in that direction and most clearly for those countries that are leaving the UK to remain in the EU. (Like Japanese car manufacturing!) It is unlikely that the UK will ever recuperate most of the trade pattern that it is losing by exiting the EU. The UK hasn't done anything more stoopid since Chamberlain believed Hitler's promise that he would not attack the UK .....
Newsnight was saying last night that one of May's Ministers was saying, while drunk, that May intended on going for a long extension of article 50 if she could not get her deal through.
I've seen those (firmly denied) reports too. I think that's wishful thinking on behalf of Remainers, not least because I cannot see a process by which an article 50 extension could make it though parliament (and then there are the broader issues of European elections and so on) which means that in the event that Theresa May's deal is rejected, the UK will end up leaving with no-deal.
Yes, I have seen the denials as well but you would expect that. I find it weird the way I am forever hearing Tories saying they have to keep No Deal on the table otherwise they will have no bargaining chips. Do they not think the EU hears that too I think it is probably more likely that a majority in Parliament would not want No Deal and so would agree with a vote on that. I would agree it does not sound like May. I think a lot of labour MP's are having to jiggle being seen to go by their voters democratic voice and not voting for something which is going to make the situation absolutely dire for them. Obviously May has said she will give some short term money to the poorest areas but this vote is Britain's future and MP's really need to also take a responsibility for what they are going to do to the country, as best they can see the likely future.
I agree that a majority in parliament do not want a no-deal. Indeed there are very many things that a majority in parliament do not want. The issue is that there doesn't seem to be anything that a majority in parliament do want. Parliament was offered the opportunity to reject a no-deal and they turned it down.
I missed that. link please. They did vote against No Deal in the recent long list of amendments though that was not legal, it was just saying they did not want it. I know that when they had that long list of amendments including Yvette Cooper's for extending article 50, whoever I was watching believed that this should not be taken as done. This was only a vote on this day which had been agreed for that day and if things did not change in could later be put again and accepted. Obviously a lot of argument is whether the Tory left can be moved to something like a Norway plus, possibly causing a split in the party and Rees-Mogg going on to try and mainstream the far right in his party at least. I don't think anything is a done deal yet.
There were two amendments pertaining to a no-deal: The one which would have allowed MPs to delay Brexit in the event of a no-deal failed The one in which MPs said that they really would prefer not to have a no-deal Brexit but didn't give themselves any power to prevent it passed Perhaps there are a very few on the Conservative left who would be open to a Norway Plus deal but the Labour Party would be against it because Norway recognise the "four freedoms" and Jeremy Corbyn has been very clear that freedom of movement is unacceptable to him, he wants control over the UK borders. EEA membership (which is what Norway with or without a plus) without recognising the four freedoms is sheer fantasy. Jeremy Corbyn has said that he would be amenable to being in a customs union (a "Turkey plus" deal in other words) but he isn't prepared to abide by the usual terms of a customs union (for example he wants to be able to negotiate separate deals with countries who have trade deals with the EU - this is fundamentally incompatible with being in a customs union because otherwise the UK could be a back door into the EU for those other countries).
Yes so they did not vote against No Deal and as far as voting against Article 50 as I was told at the time, that does not mean they will not do that later. Some support had been made which might not hold. In many ways that vote was a vote to get a very short time of Tory hugs and unity.
Well, they kinda voted against it. They said that they're prefer it not to happen while at the same time not giving themselves any powers to prevent it (which would have come from the failed vote). Again, I'm at a loss to think of a course of action (as opposed to a course of inaction which was what the non-binding anti no-deal vote was) which would attract more than 50% support. Anything coming from Labour would be opposed by the Conservatives and vice versa. Anything which sought to soften (or weaken) Brexit would be opposed by the ERG.
....and those include the economic powerhouses that are the Faroe Islands, Madagascar, Mauritus and the Seychelles. ...and the deals are essentially the EU deals rolled over so it's difficult to see where the post-Brexit advantage is going to come from.
And the report out of Brussels is saying she won't get it. From here. Nothing has changed. She's trying perhaps to look good in the history books? We shall see ...
The link you provided doesn't seem to work. Could you please provide it again, I'd be very interested to read it.
Sorry, can't seem to find it. My mistake on the reference link. Here's another version of the same story coming out of Brussels: EU officials: UK only 'pretending to negotiate' over Brexit impasse Excerpt:
