In or out

[Himaginn]

Maybe your fantasy that leaving the EU will end immigration is irrational.

I don't want to end immmigration -no one does. I just want the sovereign ability to legislate it for ourselves. You may say "but if we want to remain in the common market we will have to accept free movement anyway", which may well be true, but I we do choose that then at least it is a choice, and we can unchoose it at any time if we see fit. Outside the EU we have the option.

I rather suspect that this "I am not against immigration. I just want to control it." comment is a temporary attempt at avoiding the xenophobic,racists accusations.
What the Brexiters really mean is that they want to control all immigration so that, in the future, they can reduce it to practically nil by increasingly stricter controls and tolerances.

All of this "we can replace the desired skills from non-EU countries" is just an attempt to bat away the accusations.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/20/bma-says-brexit-claims-on-nhs-are-farcial-and-fatuous/

Ah yes, I agree with that absolutely. We do need immigration, but not uncontrolled EU immigration, and we won't spend a huge proportion of our EU contribution on the NHS (and it would be a waste to do so, as someone else pointed out on this forum somewhere -I wish I could find it).

 

[JohnD]

"Unfortunately for Vote Leave, these claims to the mantle of NHS champion were somewhat undermined this week when the most prominent health expert backing Brexit – the former GP and chair of the House of Commons Health Select Committee, Dr Sarah Wollaston – said she would be refusing to hand out their “deliberately misleading” NHS leaflet.

What’s misleading about it?

What is misleading is that (as has been stated by the UK Statistics Authority more than once) we would not get back £350m a week by leaving the EU. It bears repeating (because Vote Leave keep using it) that the figure does not take into account the UK’s rebate or the funding we receive from the EU. The real figure is between £110m and £135m a week.

Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that members of Vote Leave’s campaign committee have in the past argued for the break-up of the NHS; that MEP Daniel Hannan said in 2009 that the health service was a 60-year-old “mistake” that had “made people iller”.

It would also be churlish to mention that we never heard a peep about the NHS from Michael Gove, Iain Duncan Smith and other Cabinet colleagues backing Brexit in the past six years, despite it undergoing the most sustained funding squeeze in its history as a result of their Government’s policy. Waiting times have increased, nine in 10 hospitals have overspent their budgets, and morale among staff is flat-lining, so one would have thought that those who care deeply about the NHS and had a powerful platform in government to say something about it might have done so, but there we are. Bygones are bygones.

Setting aside the potential economic cost of Brexit and the impact that would have on public spending (something NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens warned over this weekend) to spend even £110m more a week on the NHS, a post-Brexit government would have to make the very bold political decision to spend all of the UK’s former EU spending on the NHS – ignoring the competing claims of social care, education, defence, welfare, transport and every other area of public spending."

 

[Gerrydelasel]

What the Brexiters really mean is that they want to control all immigration so that, in the future, they can reduce it to practically nil by increasingly stricter controls and tolerances.

Since half the country appears to be pro-Remain and presumably happy with immigration, exactly how do you think these evil Brexiters would acquire the monopoloy on immigration policy?

Reducing all criticism of immigration policy to 'you're a xenophobic racist' is just an attempt to bat away the argument.

 

[handyjack]

we would not get back £350m a week by leaving the EU.

True, they won't pay it back as we will no longer be handing it over to them. Simples.

 

[JohnD]

It was the Etonian fathers of our present Etonians who created the NHS in the first place.

Nye Bevan was not an old Etonian.

The Tories fought tooth and nail against the post-war reforms.

 

[Himaginn]

What the Brexiters really mean is that they want to control all immigration so that, in the future, they can reduce it to practically nil by increasingly stricter controls and tolerances.

Since half the country appears to be pro-Remain and presumably happy with immigration, exactly how do you think these evil Brexiters would acquire the monopoloy on immigration policy?

Reducing all criticism of immigration policy to 'you're a xenophobic racist' is just an attempt to bat away the argument.

It's an insight into the long term objectives of the Brexiters.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

The Tories fought tooth and nail against the post-war reforms.

Actually the Tories had the most detailed and generous proposal for the NHS of all the 1945 election manifestos. The NHS was inevitable after the war; Labour just happened to win.

 

[JohnD]

True, they won't pay it back as we will no longer be handing it over to them. Simples.

These Exit nutters really do like repeating lies, don't they?

"What is misleading is that (as has been stated by the UK Statistics Authority more than once) we would not get back £350m a week by leaving the EU. It bears repeating (because Vote Leave keep using it) that the figure does not take into account the UK’s rebate or the funding we receive from the EU. The real figure is between £110m and £135m a week."

 

[Gerrydelasel]

The real figure is between £110m and £135m a week."

According to Full Fact is it £248M a week.

 

[handyjack]

The real figure is between £110m and £135m a week."

According to Full Fact is it £248M a week.

The facts won't hold any sway anything for Puppets on a string.

It matters not a fig what the actual figure is. If we do the intelligent thing and vote out, we save. Simples...

 

[handyjack]

JD has blocked me from starting new threads on the GD forum. Can someone do a poll of how people actually voted, would then take into account the undecided.
Cheers

 

[JohnD]

more nonsense.

but included a link to a site that says:

"So if the UK left the EU it would almost certainly save less than the whole £14.4 billion amount we sent there in 2014. Exactly how much less depends on how much EU spending the government would want to keep in place."

"The UK gets money from the EU budget as well, so the savings from leaving would be lower

The UK receives money back from Brussels in the form of grants and payments. These mainly go to farmers and poorer areas of the country such as Wales and Cornwall.

According to the claim from the ‘Remain’ side, these reduce the net payment the UK makes to the EU to £9 billion.

This doesn’t exactly match the Treasury figures, but it’s not far off.

In 2014 the UK public sector received £4.6 billion from the various spending programmes, again quoting the 2015 report on EU Finances published by HM Treasury.

Based on this, the Treasury says that ‘net contributions to the EU budget’ were £9.8 billion that year. This is deducting the amount of the rebate and money coming back to the public sector from the gross payments.

The Treasury also says that the UK private sector received payments as well, such as research grants. These were estimated in 2013 at £1.4 billion, but the Treasury does not show these in its table.

If these additional payments are also deducted, the net contribution would come down to £8.4 billion in 2014."

Gerry's site also says:
"Norway also pays a financial contribution linked to its relationship with the EU.
This was around £115 per Norwegian in 2014. The UK paid around £220 per head into the EU budget in the same year. This is before money comes back from the EU,"

but he won't want to mention that.

Anyway, the main point is that the figure he quoted is a lie, and he knows it.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Anyway, the main point is that the figure he quoted is a lie, and he knows it.

How is it a lie? Do you not believe Full Fact?
Suppose I have an arrangement to give you £10 a week and you give me back £6 each week to spend on hookers. Then we terminate that agreement. I am now not giving you £10 a week. That's it. Which part do you not understand?
I can still choose to spend £6 on hookers if I want to, or I can spend it elsewhere if I prefer, or not at all. I also have the other £4 to do with as I please. So basically I have £10 to do with as I please.

We give the EU £248M per week. Yes they give us some back in the form of grants, how nice of them, but that does not change the £248M figure. We could have 'given ourselves' those grants. So what problem is the EU solving? If you enjoy that sort of arrangement then I'd be happy for you to send me money and I will decide how to spend it for you (I'll keep some for myself, for my trouble, obviously).

 

[JohnD]

How is it a lie?

The 350 figure you used is a lie and you know it.