Record immigration figures released. Why we should get out !

[Gerrydelasel]

There is no housng shortage. There are thousands upon thousands of empty houses in the UK. But councils create no incentive to make them habitable, they just keep building crap new builds -that most people don't want to buy.

 

[^woody^]

But councils create no incentive to make them habitable, they just keep building crap new builds

Council's have been prevented from building new homes for many years now, decades even.

There are no empty council homes

 

[Himaginn]

So you are suggesting an immigration figure of 828,000, whereas the government say 617,000. A difference of over 200,000. An exaggeration by you of nearly 33%
Do you still claim your figure is correct?

The site I linked to is the official .gov website Himmy.. Should I have reason to disbelieve anything they publish? Perhaps I shouldn't now believe anything Cameron says.

Yes it's a official data for NI numbers issued, not for number of immigrants to UK.
You've misused the figures for your own agenda. You've put a completely different meaning to them than was intended.
It's deceitful and unhelpful (to your cause or anyone else's) to misuse those figures.

 

[Doug99]

There's talk of Turkey and Albania joining the EU. That's 70 MILLION muslims whose incomes are a lot lower than in The UK. All will have the right to come here.

Looks like someone had a preview of Nigel Farage's speech. he only said it an hour ago:

He warned that expansion of EU membership - potentially to Bosnia and Turkey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35679384
Having discussed the Turkey issue in some depth and detail, we now know for sure that Nigel is talking politics of paranoia, again.

You may suggest 'paranoia politics' but is he wrong? The Turks will have unfettered access to the UK, no matter how it is construed.

 

[Himaginn]

There's talk of Turkey and Albania joining the EU. That's 70 MILLION muslims whose incomes are a lot lower than in The UK. All will have the right to come here.

Having discussed the Turkey issue in some depth and detail, we now know for sure that Nigel is talking politics of paranoia, again.

You may suggest 'paranoia politics' but is he wrong? The Turks will have unfettered access to the UK, no matter how it is construed.

Oh dear, you obviously haven't read my response to the original, imprecise, and incorrect assertion.
I'll repeat it here for you as you haven't found the original:

That's a gross misrepresentation ... Turkey. It's also a prejudicial rant exploiting the politics of paranoia, and spreading urban mythology as usual.
Turkey has been a candidate for full membership since 1999. (and has been wanting to join since 1959)
Surprisingly, Germany is the main opponent of Turkey joining EU, (not surprisingly, so is Cyprus). Whereas UK and USA have been supporters all along. France is now supporting the joining of Turkey to EU, but with serious considerations.
There is understandable discussion about whether Turkey is a European country, and the concern over human rights.
A former president of EU, back in 2006, expected Turkey's process for complying not to be completed until at least 2021, and Turkey was hoping to be a full member by 2023. If the 2023 date had not been achieved Turkey was threatening to cease the process of complying with the requirements.
Only 15 out of 35 'chapters' (aspects of discussions) about accession of Turkey are open for discussion currently. The rest are frozen.
Only 1 out of the 35 chapters has been completed so far.

So Turkey's accession to full membership is very much in doubt. And the 2023 deadline is a pipe dream.

But the most important fact of them all, any new country joining the EU needs full unanimous support of all the existing members, because it requires a Treaty Change.
Cyprus, particularly is likely to continue to oppose Turkey's acceptance into EU.

So yes, he is wrong!
Additionally, your assertion of "unfettered access to UK" is ignoring any restrictions that can/may be imposed.
I would also add: "Only 1 out of the 35 chapters has been completed so far." and it's taken 17 years to complete that one!

 

[Doug99]

There's talk of Turkey and Albania joining the EU. That's 70 MILLION muslims whose incomes are a lot lower than in The UK. All will have the right to come here.

Having discussed the Turkey issue in some depth and detail, we now know for sure that Nigel is talking politics of paranoia, again.

You may suggest 'paranoia politics' but is he wrong? The Turks will have unfettered access to the UK, no matter how it is construed.

Oh dear, you obviously haven't read my response to the original, imprecise, and incorrect assertion.
I'll repeat it here for you as you haven't found the original:

That's a gross misrepresentation ... Turkey. It's also a prejudicial rant exploiting the politics of paranoia, and spreading urban mythology as usual.
Turkey has been a candidate for full membership since 1999. (and has been wanting to join since 1959)
Surprisingly, Germany is the main opponent of Turkey joining EU, (not surprisingly, so is Cyprus). Whereas UK and USA have been supporters all along. France is now supporting the joining of Turkey to EU, but with serious considerations.
There is understandable discussion about whether Turkey is a European country, and the concern over human rights.
A former president of EU, back in 2006, expected Turkey's process for complying not to be completed until at least 2021, and Turkey was hoping to be a full member by 2023. If the 2023 date had not been achieved Turkey was threatening to cease the process of complying with the requirements.
Only 15 out of 35 'chapters' (aspects of discussions) about accession of Turkey are open for discussion currently. The rest are frozen.
Only 1 out of the 35 chapters has been completed so far.

So Turkey's accession to full membership is very much in doubt. And the 2023 deadline is a pipe dream.

But the most important fact of them all, any new country joining the EU needs full unanimous support of all the existing members, because it requires a Treaty Change.
Cyprus, particularly is likely to continue to oppose Turkey's acceptance into EU.

So yes, he is wrong!

2023 is only 7 years away. If they meet all the requirements in 2025 or 2030 or 2035, they could still join the EU party. As a member of the EU, they will have unfettered access to the UK. Is it still paranoia politics to worry for our children and grandchildren?

 

[Himaginn]

2023 is only 7 years away. If they meet all the requirements in 2025 or 2030 or 2035, they could still join the EU party. As a member of the EU, they will have unfettered access to the UK. Is it still paranoia politics to worry for our children and grandchildren?

or 2050, or 2075, or 2100? Does it matter, if you're ignoring this comment:
"But the most important fact of them all, any new country joining the EU needs full unanimous support of all the existing members, because it requires a Treaty Change.
Cyprus, particularly is likely to continue to oppose Turkey's acceptance into EU"
Is it intentional to ignore such an important criteria?
If you wish to continue picking out the bits that you want to discuss and ignoring the most important criteria, then it becomes a pointless discussion because you're refusing to acknowledge the over-arching conditions.
So you're comment is purely speculative.

Additionally you are still ignoring any restrictions that can/may be imposed on migration, in the unlikely event of Turkey ever succeeding.

So in answer to your original question again: Yes he is wrong!
If you want a different discussion about the possibility of whether Turkey will ever be a member, perhaps you ought to start a new thread.
In the meantime it's politics of paranoia.

Additionally Bosnia have not submitted an application for accession and cannot until the OHR completes the process of DPA.
So, not only is Nigel wrong, he is also being highly and unprofessionally speculative.

The EU stated early on that Bosnia could not submit a credible application for membership until the ]Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is charged with implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, has been closed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_to_the_European_Union

 

[Doug99]

2023 is only 7 years away. If they meet all the requirements in 2025 or 2030 or 2035, they could still join the EU party. As a member of the EU, they will have unfettered access to the UK. Is it still paranoia politics to worry for our children and grandchildren?

or 2050, or 2075, or 2100? Does it matter, if you're ignoring this comment:
"But the most important fact of them all, any new country joining the EU needs full unanimous support of all the existing members, because it requires a Treaty Change.
Cyprus, particularly is likely to continue to oppose Turkey's acceptance into EU"
Is it intentional to ignore such an important criteria?
If you wish to continue picking out the bits that you want to discuss and ignoring the most important criteria, then it becomes a pointless discussion because you're refusing to acknowledge the over-arching conditions.
So you're comment is purely speculative.

Additionally you are still ignoring any restrictions that can/may be imposed on migration, in the unlikely event of Turkey ever succeeding.

So in answer to your original question again: Yes he is wrong!
If you want a different discussion about the possibility of whether Turkey will ever be a member, perhaps you ought to start a new thread.
In the meantime it's politics of paranoia.

Additionally Bosnia have not submitted an application for accession and cannot until the OHR completes the process of DPA.
So, not only is Nigel wrong, he is also being highly and unprofessionally speculative.

The EU stated early on that Bosnia could not submit a credible application for membership until the ]Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is charged with implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, has been closed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_to_the_European_Union

If Brussels

2023 is only 7 years away. If they meet all the requirements in 2025 or 2030 or 2035, they could still join the EU party. As a member of the EU, they will have unfettered access to the UK. Is it still paranoia politics to worry for our children and grandchildren?

or 2050, or 2075, or 2100? Does it matter, if you're ignoring this comment:
"But the most important fact of them all, any new country joining the EU needs full unanimous support of all the existing members, because it requires a Treaty Change.
Cyprus, particularly is likely to continue to oppose Turkey's acceptance into EU"
Is it intentional to ignore such an important criteria?
If you wish to continue picking out the bits that you want to discuss and ignoring the most important criteria, then it becomes a pointless discussion because you're refusing to acknowledge the over-arching conditions.
So you're comment is purely speculative.

Additionally you are still ignoring any restrictions that can/may be imposed on migration, in the unlikely event of Turkey ever succeeding.

So in answer to your original question again: Yes he is wrong!
If you want a different discussion about the possibility of whether Turkey will ever be a member, perhaps you ought to start a new thread.
In the meantime it's politics of paranoia.

Additionally Bosnia have not submitted an application for accession and cannot until the OHR completes the process of DPA.
So, not only is Nigel wrong, he is also being highly and unprofessionally speculative.

The EU stated early on that Bosnia could not submit a credible application for membership until the ]Office of the High Representative (OHR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is charged with implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, has been closed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_to_the_European_Union

When the Irish Republic voted 'OUT' in their referendum, Brussels bought them off to ensure a second referendum resulted with 'IN'. If the EU want Turkey to join the ranks I have no doubt that Cyprus could also be bought off.

 

[Himaginn]

If Brussels

When the Irish Republic voted 'OUT' in their referendum, Brussels bought them off to ensure a second referendum resulted with 'IN'.

The Irish and Denmark referenda were about Treaty Change, not an In/Out referenda. Additionally you're making imaginary assertions about them being bought off.

If the EU want Turkey to join the ranks I have no doubt that Cyprus could also be bought off.

You're making silly speculative arguments.
If Cyprus voted NO to Turkey's accession, what kind of bribery do you think would suffice? (Accepting your improbable and illogical assertion that EU 'buys' people off)
Read up on the subject first.
Here's a start:

Since then, Turkey has refused to acknowledge the Republic of Cyprus (an EU member since 2004) as the sole authority on the island, and recognizes the self-declared ]Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus since its establishment in 1983. The Turkish invasion in 1974 and the resulting movement of refugees along both sides of the Green Line, and the establishment of the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983, form the core issues which surround the ongoing Cyprus dispute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union
So a bribe may be something like Turkey withdrawing unilaterally from Cyprus.

Cyprus was divided when, on 20 July 1974, Turkey occupied a third of the island

Please keep your speculation within the bounds of reason.

Additionally:

The problem of Turkey's membership of the EU is compounded by conflicting views as to what the EU should ultimately become....
, are concerned that unification would be frustrated and the European project threatened by Turkey's inclusion.....Upon joining the EU, Turkey's 76 million inhabitants would bestow the second-largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament.....Turkey's membership would also affect future enlargement plans, especially the number of nations seeking EU membership, grounds on which Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has opposed Turkey's admission. Giscard has suggested that it would lead to demands for accession by Morocco. Morocco's application is already rejected on geographic grounds; Turkey, unlike Morocco, has 3% of its territory in Europe....Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in January 2007 that "enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept...I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union

The more you read the more you will realise how silly your speculation is, and how desperate Nigel is.
And why is Nigel resorting to such desperate depths?

 

[kai]

On a related note:- Well at least the Poles have a language very close to English, they write in a similar fashion to English, it's just that they spell things a bit differently.
Making them have (or obtain) a certain level of English proficiency (read/write/speaking) would be quite easy though.

 

[JohnD]

Well at least the Poles have a language very close to English,

Are you sure? I speak English, French, some German, a little Russian, and some other languages, and have known several Poles, and was not able to recognise a similarity to anything I knew.

I just checked a bunch of foundation words on an online translator, and they are quite different. They are very similar to Serbo-Croat.

 

[kai]

Just rechecked, it is FRENCH, not Polish, which has similarities with English. The French word for Hotel is also Hotel, the French word for Train is Train, nevertheless they all use the same writing system or alphabet to a greater or lesser extent....

 

[JohnD]

Those are Borrowed Words.

In fact, English is a Germanic language. Some people don't believe it, but check the foundation words of our language; words which every baby learns at its mother's knee and are passed down from generation to generation.

house, man, milk, water, bread, mother, son, sun, moon, sea, boat, mouse, cow, rat, hot, cold, roof, love, hear, knee, foot, finger, hand

are in German
Haus, Mann, Milch, Wasser, Brot, Mutter, Sohn, Sonne, Mond, See, Boot, Maus, Kuh, Ratte, heiß, kalt, Dach, liebe, höre, Knie, Fuß, Finger, Hand

I threw in "Roof" to trick you. German "Dach" supplied English "Thatch"

In French they are
maison, l'homme, le lait, l'eau, le pain, la mère, le fils, le soleil, la lune, mer, bateau, souris, vache, rat, chaud, froid, toit, amour, ecoutez, genou, pied, doigt, main
which are quite different (apart from Rat).

 

[jockscott]

So you are suggesting an immigration figure of 828,000, whereas the government say 617,000. A difference of over 200,000. An exaggeration by you of nearly 33%
Do you still claim your figure is correct?

The site I linked to is the official .gov website Himmy.. Should I have reason to disbelieve anything they publish? Perhaps I shouldn't now believe anything Cameron says.

Yes it's a official data for NI numbers issued, not for number of immigrants to UK.
You've misused the figures for your own agenda. You've put a completely different meaning to them than was intended.
It's deceitful and unhelpful (to your cause or anyone else's) to misuse those figures.

Again , I refer you to the title within the link. NI numbers issued to adult overseas nationals.. Yes, you are correct, it doesn't mention the number of immigrants.. That's probably far higher (and a figure the government don't want you or I to ever know)
As I said before , this is a .gov website, all I have done is shown the figures from HM government. Just because they're at odds with your figures, probably means, your figures are incorrect.

 

[jockscott]

Additionally you are still ignoring any restrictions that can/may be imposed on migration, in the unlikely event of Turkey ever succeeding.

Rather defeats the EU objective of free unfettered rights to live and work within another EU country then.... I'll put that one down as opinion and conjecture on your part.