"The UK government is only answerable to the UK voter and no one else. Parliament is sovereign and can do anything they want"...Disagree, we take orders and spend good money doing it
"The Appledore Shipyard is not shutting down because of the EU." ..... It's not what Union bosses are saying. Every govt contract has to go out to tender, and other EU govts subsidise their industries.
"If you don't like tendering across the EU than you also don't want to win contracts across the EU. Believe it or not we do quite well out of it "...... Like Bombardier ?
"With regards to immigration, it's all a myth and wild claims"
20 Bogus Arguments for Mass Immigration
History & Miscellaneous: MW 269
1.Introduction
This paper outlines the many myths that are put forward by the mass immigration lobby in support of the current levels of immigration and dispels each myth in turn. 2.‘Immigration provides great economic benefit’
For many years the Labour government claimed that immigration added £6 billion a year to GDP. However, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee[1], reporting in April 2008, said that what mattered was GDP per head. They concluded that:
We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.
In January 2012 the Migration Advisory Committee[2] went further. They said that even GDP per head exaggerated the benefit of immigration because:It is the immigrants themselves rather than the extant residents who are the main gainers.
They suggested that the GDP of residents should be the main focus. They recognised that the resident population would gain via any “dynamic effects” of skilled immigration on productivity and innovation, remarking that “these exist and may be large, but they are elusive to measure”.In their annual Fiscal Sustainability Report, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility concluded in August 2013:
In our attempt to summarise the vast literature on the impact of immigration on the labour market and productivity we have not found definitive evidence on the impact of immigrants on productivity and GDP. Most of the literature seems to indicate that immigrants have a positive, although not significant, impact on productivity and GDP.[3]
As regards EU migration, a study by the NIESR in 2011 found that the potential long-run impact of EU8 migration (Poland et al) on GDP per head was expected to be “negligible”[4] ranging from 0.17% to -0.17%. However, this result relied upon an upward ‘age adjustment’ on the assumption that migrants tended to be of working age and thus to be “net contributors to the government coffers”. Subsequent research on the fiscal contribution of migrants to the UK suggests that this assumption may well be unsound (see 3. below) 3.‘Immigrants are not a problem as they work hard and pay tax’Some of the limited research in this area had found that there might be a small positive fiscal impact to immigration. Nonetheless, according to the House of Lords Economic Committee “the fiscal impact (of immigration) is small compared to GDP and cannot be used to justify large-scale immigration”.
However, the presumption of even a small fiscal benefit has been comprehensively overturned by a UCL study published in 2014 which found the fiscal impact of migrants in the UK between 1995 and 2011 was in fact a net cost of between £115 and £160 billion that is between £19 and £26 million per day.[5]
The same study claimed that East European migrants contributed £5 billion to the Exchequer between 2001 and 2011. However that calculation was based on the assumption that they paid, from the moment of their arrival, corporate and business taxes at the same rate as lifelong UK residents. Correcting for this brought the contribution close to zero. 4.‘Migrants are less likely to claim benefits’
Figures from the DWP show that migrants to the UK are less likely to claim out-of-work benefits. But large amounts of the total benefits bill are paid to people in work, in particular tax credits and housing benefit. Research shows that some migrant groups are much more likely to be claiming these key benefits than the general population.[6]5. ‘Britain is only the 39th most crowded country in the world’
93% of immigrants go to England so England is what matters in this context. England is the second most densely populated country in the EU with 417 people per square kilometre, after the Netherlands (with 500 people per square kilometre) and excluding islands such as Malta.
Excluding island states and city states like Singapore, England is the eighth most crowded country in the world, just behind India and nearly twice as crowded as Germany and three and a half times as crowded as France.
We're never going to agree fish, so i'll not post in here again, it'll only cause arguments.
But I will leave you with this thought, why is it most of the very wealthy and ex politicians who signed
treaties like Maastricht (signed without peoples vote/consent) are all for this?
Some don't even pay tax here, because they're on a nice little earner, like "farmer" Heseltine, literally getting money for nothing
Leave a comment: