Freedom of movement to be extended to Romanians and Bulgarians

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/27/migration-row-government-panicking-labour

While I am sure nobody has anything against the people themselves, the majority of British citizens are increasingly concerned about this issue.

What is your opinion on the subject?

 

i vote: yes but only for the females

 

You have to be kidding me? What is your serious belief?

 

I'm not sure about the UK, but Germany has a pretty big problem of groups of thieves coming from eastern nations, going on robbery sprees, then disappearing back to their home nations.

I'd think that a policy like this might make that problem worse.

 

No. Freedom of movement should not be extended to Romanians and Bulgarians. As things stand, hundreds of thousands of Romanian and Bulgarian thieves, criminals and Roma scum (and the Roma really are the scum of the Earth) are going to be flooding into Britain from just a few weeks from now. But there is hope. A Tory MP has taken out a motion calling for a debate in the Commons over whether or not freedom of movement into Britain for Romanians and Bulgarians should be delayed until January 1st 2017. If the Government do go ahead with that it'll be a massive vote winner for the Tories. Of course, rather predictably, Cleggie and the Liberals are saying it would be "illegal" and "racist", but it's now time for the British Government to stick two fingers up at the EU and if the EU want to investigate it for its lawfulness, then TOUGH. It wouldn't do any favours for EU popularity in the UK, and it'll just make the British public more likely to vote to leave the EU in the 2017 referendum.

 

True there's literally no border, we do have an advantage with that however, being an island we cheeck those leaving and entering, we could send out an all ports warning, having the person arrested at the airport/ port.

The problem is them draining our resources (NHS or Welfare for example).

Nobody is scum however apart from that I agree, the Liberals are just attention seeking, I feel with pressure from UKIP and common sense they will delay it.

 

Yes, but have caps. Preferably Phrygian ones.

 

I think most of either Romanians who wanted to steal or Romanians who wanted to work in Britain have already done so a long time ago.

 

Most Romanians & Bulgarians are already here. The lifting of restrictions will only see a marginal increase of these people but unfortunately the problem lies in how many migrants we have all together.

 

Send the Irish back?

 

Which ones?
The Irish that moved here before the EU or after their economic meltdown?

 

I'll leave that decision up to you!

I mention the Irish as historically they're a group that did stand out (unlike the hullabaloo over Romanians as we pander to right wing cretins). Britain has benefited greatly from immigration. Its only the Irish where we have clear evidence of education levels below the native born. Send them back?

 

Ok. I have nothing against people who migrated to the UK before the late 90's

I'm not actually against the concept of immigration but what I am against is open borders and the unrestricted number of migrants.

You're assuming that a lack of education stops people from making money or turning a profit.

Some industries such as farming which don't require a great deal of education; they would make good workers but even then it would be better if there spare places for natives to work in each firm.

 

How about students? The anti-immigrant stance followed by the "vote for us cos we're no different to UKIP, BNP or NF" Tories is likely to significantly impact on the education industry. One of the only industries that Britain excels in. Are you aware of that?

Nope. I'm referring to the obvious: a higher average education level will assuredly mean higher human capital levels (and, as shown by those right wing growth models that anti-immigrants suddenly forget, that human capital boost leads to higher economics growth)

A minor issue. Also one which amuses me. Historically British agriculture relied on youngsters and middle aged women. Why the shift to migrant labour? They could also 'home' them and, through the 'work and live' arrangement, reduce wages further. And whilst they did it they maintained their Common Agricultural Policy profiteering. Bargain!

 

I'm fine with students as long as they are barred from taking educational loans and the number of work visas are limited.

Yes I am although I must say that the traditional elite unis aren't what they used to be e.g. Oxford.

Only if there are available jobs for them and that's if they decide to stay.

I know as I have done it myself.

The shift is simply because they are cheaper and most British workers are looking for something that is more permanent.
In my experience they do work long hours but are very sloppy and in some cases really rather lazy.

And it's not that great a bargain except for the farmer because if you live in a county which is not that developed and one of the few jobs available happens to be on a farm or a factory and then find that the employer is only looking for foreign workers.

 

So you're against the anti-immigrant position taken by the government? Because that is assuredly crucifying the education industry. Its a neat example of the harm generated by pandering to right wing grunt.

Aren't what they used to be? Please enlarge on that comment and actually say what you mean.

Greater human capital, according to the right wing growth models, creates jobs. Didn't you know? Seems to me the anti-immigrants are particularly innocent of economics!

Bobbins! Its about exploitation. They can exploit the foreign worker as they are empowered by also providing accommodation.

Xenophobic nonsense! Agricultural workers are paid piece rates and are deducted monies for damage. Crikey, you're coming across like a Daily Mail reader!

The farmer is allowed to exploit more and also have Nanny EU protect them. These are the real problems in the country, not immigration. A false issue peddled by those that want to maintain the status quo

 

No I'm not against the government position on immigration.
No it won't crucify the education industry because it will encourage the richer students rather than everyone else from abroad.

All right. The quality of graduates that it produces for courses which are non-specific to a trade is somewhat lacking in terms of their knowledge and ability to reason.
I've heard good things out of Cambridge though.

As I've said before; I've studied economics.

You've just agreed with me.

No. It comes from experience and yes agri workers are paid little which the same across the globe.
And yes I do read the DM but I don't believe every word it says and quite frankly it's bad journalism.

I'd suggest that you refrain from any further personal comments regarding my person because I will terminate my part in this discussion if this continues.

 

Then you tacitly support the attack on the education industry.

This is nonsense. Universities are already seeing reductions in applications. Why do you think the biggest critics of the government are vice chancellors?

This is drivel. Oxbridge designed for vocational degrees? Chortle, chortle, be feckin serious!

That doesn't explain your inconsistency! Your anti-immigration isn't consistent with economics. Try arguing otherwise!

Nope. I referred to exploitation, not wages (given, as I demonstrated, it necessarily has to refer to non-pecuniary aspects)

Why do you read a bad paper? Doesn't make sense to me!

Bye then. I wouldn't want to upset you so. Those anti-immigrant fellows must be treated very delicately

 

?

I am serious. And I never said that it was doing vocational degrees.

I'm trying to but you've not been particularly receptive and you've hardly elaborated upon your own views.

Right so it's slavery or woofing, none of which are particularly big factors in the UK economy.

Fun. Also it's a good idea to read across the whole spectrum of left and right wing politics.
This stops others from being entrenched into inconsolable positions.

No it's about impartiality and empiricism which is crucial for a debate. And you'll observe that I have not exercised a similar attitude towards you.

Unless you're willing to amend you're attitude then I'll consider this dialogue with you to be terminated.

 

There wasn't anything difficult in what I typed. If you support the government's position then you necessarily also support the attack on the education industry.

I've already concluded that you don't know what Oxbridge achieves. Now I despise it, but for proper reason: an elitism that harms the overall higher education sector. Your comment, in contrast, made no sense.

Please don't go with the "play pretend" routine. I've referred directly to the economics (growth models, reference to human capital etc). You've given naff all. Can you put that right? Malthus gave you some stuff to abuse. So where is it?

You keep misrepresenting (which is a decidedly poor tactic and much worse than referring to your Daily Mail nature). It is the reality of exploitation which ensures local workers aren't considered. It isn't because the foreign worker is cheaper; its because the immigrant can be cheated.

You think a paper that peddles right wing filth is fun? By golly!

You don't appreciate a spectrum through a warped restriction. Want a right wing perspective? Read the Economist. Perhaps then you'd actually refer to some economics!

I said you read the Daily Mail. You informed me that you do. In terms of empiricism, you haven't got a foot stamp to offer.

Already said Bye. Not really interested in the non-economic foot stamping!

 

So learning a foreign language does not relate to a trade does it?
When I made the comment that you referred to I was relating students from outside Oxford in order to draw a comparison because there's no sense comparing students who are solely from the Uni.

btw the use of "Oxbridge" is flawed as the original name is Oxenaforda which basically means ox crossing.
The modernised term of "Oxbridge" is incompatible as crossing may not necessarily relate to a man made bridging.

"Play pretend routine" ?

No you've mentioned human capital but you haven't specified as to where it is most applicable.
After all if knowledgeable, competent, foreign workers are equal to native workers and there's a deficit in terms of jobs then it becomes a detriment to the economy and not a benefit.

I should also note that this is the first time that you've asked me to elaborate on my stance.

And?

The DM is not the only paper that I read although you have clearly assumed that.

I answered your queries. It's not my responsibility to ask the questions to myself if you had then I would of been amenable.
But clearly you initiated this discussion with malice and poor manners and as such you're not worth the effort.

I gave you fair warning that I would not tolerate this and you've failed to heed it and you've broken the rules of this forum by using a personal attack.
Now this is paradoxical because economics requires an adherence to rules albeit general ones but nonetheless it only casts suspicion upon your competence.

I'll break my own rule here.
Economic behaviour is human behaviour which is something that you would know if you were only a master at it but also grounded to reality.

I have no interest in debating anything at all with you.
You've shown a complete lack of respect and maturity that is a prerequisite for a debate.
You will ignored from now on.

 

A random question.

You made a nonsensical comment about Oxbridge. Nothing more.

Oxbridge is used to refer to elite. Pretending educated comment really isn't interesting.

You continue to make no economic comment. This is certainly my last comment to you. Daily Mail non-economics is boring!

Non-economic and nonsensical. Human capital isn't "most applicable". It refers to increases in productivity, by definition

Non-economic garbage! The zero sum game nonsense you're trying is inconsistent with any valid economic approach.

Still no economics! Bye. You're clearly a troll

 

I guess some people just want someone to shout at.

 

I clearly disagree with because the Old Europa will receive lot of criminals and welfare tourists.If Bulgarians and Romanians have troubles with their damaged economies than they should chase away their corrupted politicians and improve their industry; but not search for their luck in foreign welfare agencies.

 

Definitely no. The fact that they can get welfare from my tax money is enough for me be against this. And you know what the EU commissioner said? ''Well then your welfare shouldn't be that attractive''.

I'm against the EU, because I love Europe.