http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics
More or less, yes. Experience nearly always ends up counting for more than education, as you and everyone else knows perfectly well.
Last edited:
When considering in or out:
- Thread starter Nozzle
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
Thank you. I haven't time now, but it looks like as I suspected.
2008, the drop was not so much a drop of immigration but surge of emigration. Why?
My guess is the economy was in recession, so the migrants took off. Similar to what would happen in the case of Brexit and a downward trend in the economy.
Scary? Nah, we're all used to it by now. I think Remain have probably used up their arsenal of world leaders, international bankers, CEOs of multi-nationals all telling us what's good for us. (or in reality, telling us what's good for them )
And of course, Cameron didn't break the rules by spending £9.3m of OUR money on HIS publicity.
Sponsored Links
This is a genuine question aimed at Remainers;
Before Cameron's 'negotiations' with EU leaders, he said that if he didn't get what he believed was right for Britain, he would walk away and go for brexit.
Now he is saying that if we do brexit, Britain is not capable of standing on its own two feet without being propped up by nanny in Brussells.
So which is it?
Before Cameron's 'negotiations' with EU leaders, he said that if he didn't get what he believed was right for Britain, he would walk away and go for brexit.
Now he is saying that if we do brexit, Britain is not capable of standing on its own two feet without being propped up by nanny in Brussells.
So which is it?
It was a ploy by a Conservative hoping to gain a majority in the General Election and to be Prime Minister. Surely you knew that?
Boris is appealing to exactly the same people for exactly the same reason.
Perhaps you think you can believe them both.
Boris is appealing to exactly the same people for exactly the same reason.
Perhaps you think you can believe them both.
You've already made that point and it's been suitably rebuffed.
Repeating yourself with the same accusations doesn't look good for Brexiters.
I'll remind you of the rebuff, last time you tried that accusation:
Call, it however you like, but Cameron is PM and therefore he, as the head of the Government, can use money to put the Government's case.
Just 'cos you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's breaking the rules.
They key point there being that they are meant to be impartial. But are they really concerned about the U.K. or about European/world finance as a whole?
What about the tens of millions of pounds per day it costs the U.K. to be in the EU which could be better spent on the NHS, fixing some of the country's crumbling infrastructure, providing better pensions for the country's older population, and so on?
What about the extra money which would be saved by both private businesses and in the government system by the scrapping of thousands of pieces of EU bureaucracy which currently add unnecessary costs to everything?
What about restoring the power to the U.K.'s government so that it may (at least in theory) govern in a way which is beneficial to the U.K. without being restricted by EU orders, even when those orders are detrimental to Britain? That means taxes, employment legislation, rules about what must be fitted to new cars, regulations about the construction of domestic appliances, and thousands of other things.
What about restoring protection to U.K. citizens and residents from being hauled off to another country, possibly one they've never even visited and for something which isn't even illegal in the U.K. without a British judge even looking at the case and ordering extradition? And to a country in which the legal system does not provide basic principles such as habeas corpus which have been enjoyed by British citizens for a very long time?
D
Doggit
I never cease to be amazed by your intransigence Himmy; just because you've "suitably rebuffed" Tony, doesn't mean you're right just because you've put you're viewpoint, or should I say the viewpoint of those whose views you support. You quote you're supporting sources, and we do likewise, but it's only you and John that seems to resort smug responses. Have you never noticed how the remain side always tell you how bad things will be, and never give you a balanced view, and that should ring alarm bells in any normal persons reasoning. Of course there's going to be problems, but nothing that can't be handled.
Fear mongering is Osborne telling people that they'll lose £4300 per family, but a reasoned argument would have said that the lower wage earners would lose £250, and the highest earners £20,000, but a balanced viewpoint doesn't get the message across in the way he wants. I know a young girl who's voting to stay in, simply because she's been told that her mobile phone charges will rise if we leave, except they're going down in 2017 to a local call rate right across Europe. And it's sad that you can't see that every argument they use is just fear base, and it's a bigger shame that you're giving in to that fear.
The international credit rating Moodys, recently wrote an article that said that the collapse of the EU, was a case of when, and not if, and there's no question, it's going to cause a hell of a problem for about 5 years if that happens, and that's why we need to quit the sinking ship, before it drags us under.
Fear mongering is Osborne telling people that they'll lose £4300 per family, but a reasoned argument would have said that the lower wage earners would lose £250, and the highest earners £20,000, but a balanced viewpoint doesn't get the message across in the way he wants. I know a young girl who's voting to stay in, simply because she's been told that her mobile phone charges will rise if we leave, except they're going down in 2017 to a local call rate right across Europe. And it's sad that you can't see that every argument they use is just fear base, and it's a bigger shame that you're giving in to that fear.
The international credit rating Moodys, recently wrote an article that said that the collapse of the EU, was a case of when, and not if, and there's no question, it's going to cause a hell of a problem for about 5 years if that happens, and that's why we need to quit the sinking ship, before it drags us under.
There's no fool like an old fool.
The most extreme fools are people whose age should have made them wise.
To return to your graph of net migration. It is as I suspected, UK net migration is directly linked to UK GDP. Whether there is a causal relationship, I suspect there is.
http://www.bbc.com/news/10613201
By using the original graphs, in both cases, it's possible to pinpoint precise years.
1991, a sudden reversal in net migration. The reduction of GDP came first, starting in 1990.
1995, a reversal in net migration lasting until 1997. 1995 Q1 a sudden reduction in GDP, mirrored in 1996 Q4.
2008 lasting until 2009, a reduction in net migration. 2007 Q4 lasting until 2009 Q2 a reduction in GDP.
2011 - 2012 a reduction in net migration. 2011 Q2 to 2012 Q4 a reduction in GDP.
It would take further research to identify whether the immigration is more influenced by EU or non-EU migrants during periods of reduction in GDP.
I suspect it's more EU influenced, than non-EU.
Unless, of course, the immigration causes the growth or reduction in GDP.
An indication of the relationship between immigration and GDP could probably be deduced by the relatively larger numbers of immigrants attracted to areas with low unemployment.
Additionally, by identifying only EU immigration, 2004 saw a large increase, (by 2007 it had more than tripled) coinciding with Poland and seven others joining EU. If I recall correctly the government of the day waived the right to restrict new immigration for 7 years, whereas the rest of the EU countries did restrict immigration from newly joined countries.
Whereas a new list of countries joining in 2007 did not see any increase in EU immigration.
So, in summary, a Brexit will probably incur a sea of EU migrants emigrating, probably in search of work because Brexit will cause a downward trend in our economy.
Now if you also check the GPD per capita graph, you'll see that a case could be made for the benefit of immigration.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita
So quote your sources.
D
Doggit
Nicely put PBC, but the truth of the matter, is that we currently have the most pathetic and inept Government going - but I suspect Labour would be doing the same. The french and Germans ignore edicts that hurt their economy, but we bend over backwards, and implement everything we're told to do. The French just deport undesirables straight away, but we let them challenge us, AND we give them money to do it. Cameron showed how useless he was in allowing a referendum for Scotland, and then promised them everything and more to get them to stay, and he only allowed the EU referendum because UKIP was listening to the people, whilst he was ignoring them and treating us with contempt. If we had a strong Government, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion, but as the saying goes, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always get in.
Lots of accusations and assertions in there, any examples?
Of course, we don't expect the MEP's to actually draft thelegislation, but you're missing the point.
The Commission sends proposed legislation to the Parliament, and in the brief time allowed for discussion Parliament says "O.K., we want to pass this except we don't like that part in paragraph 29 sub-clause 2. Get rid of it."
Is the Commission obliged to send back a revised proposal with sub-clause 2 of para. 29 deleted?
Tariffs are paid by the importer at the other end. And yes, obviously the £30 million per day or however much is saved can't be spent multiple times, but it's still a lot of money to be divided up to help elsewhere.
You think there aren't already Whitehall bureaucrats administering the U.K. part of the EU scheme?
Last edited:
- Status
Sponsored Links
