Mr. K, leaving the umlaut [tricky with a UK keyboard] aside, you mean 'Fuhrerin', I think [a suffix of -in feminises a German noun. I once asked my German teacher if a brother who had a sex change would be a Bruderin, but he was unsure].
It is ironic that WWII guilt is helping drive Germany's stance, at the same time as it tries to dictate policy to the rest of the EU.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Thompson, from the last figure, that would imply annual net migration of 450,000.
Mr Dancer. German girls are grammatically "neuter" - Das Maedchen!
I do think that we should try and do something to help: contributing to helping people in the area is one thing, taking in - up to a limit - genuine asylum seekers and focusing first on Christians and Yazidis who really are persecuted and face no future at all in the Middle East, regrettably, for now anyway - and then determining how many and which of the other migrants we want and can sensibly take without putting undue strain on our resources and social cohesion.
And finally our aim should be to give people temporary shelter so that all these educated professional people can eventually go home and create a worthwhile society in their homeland.
Antifrank - I think you're starting point is wrong. In my opinion you should go back to 2001 when the population was 59m. In the following 10 years the population increased by 4m - a rise of 6%. In some contexts 6% might not make much difference, but in this context it's quite a big increase. That the country has coped is not the point. We now have a housing shortage which is most acutely felt in London and the South East. Adding 120k a year to the net immigration of 300k is only going to exacerbate the problem. As Isam has rightly pointed out, the country's sympathy for asylum seekers would be far greater had we had control of economic immigration in the past decade.
Given the housing position we are in, and the position which the NHS is in. can you really says we've coped, or will cope in the future?
One of the reasons you are looking silly is that net migration is at a record high, concern over migration is at a record high, and you think adding 33% extra on top is 'not very much at all'
Your example of a 200% increase and your isamland nonsense are irrelevant as the context here is one of a time of record net migration, whereas your examples are using a time of either falling or zero migration.
Stop the generic slurs or I'll start thinking it must be your time of the month
In other words, "don't answer me with logic". Your metric is bullshit as my two examples show clearly.
Nono it's more "I am right and you are wrong"
You are dead right @isam. There is now turmoil in the heart of the European enterprise. Clever fuhrer Merkel's dream of leading all of Europe under German hegemony is now being exposed as never before. The more she pushes more migrants into Germany and the rest of Europe, the more the people seethe. An explosion is nigh this autumn.
Is Merkel really in favour of letting in 800,000 migrants into Germany? That's 1% of their total population!
GE 2015 saw politicians keenly aware of housing problems in this country desperately trying to out do each other with regard to the number of homes that could be built. And in recent months these threads have been awash with discussions about building on brownfield sites and the Green Belt to alleviate shortages of residential property.
Anyone tell me where Cooper's 10,000 a month are going to live please?
The reality is that if immigration keeps outstripping housing supply, we will:
a) see more people living in slum conditions - 10 people in a terraced house or people sleeping in garden sheds b) see an increase in homelessness and camps of rough sleepers
The other assumption is that because we have a growing economy there is an unlimited supply of jobs for people to take. Surely at some point we will end up with oversupply and if the economy stalls then I would expect unemployment to move up sharply.
Jobs are never a finite resource. More people cause more demand causes more jobs. Fewer people means fewer [less] demand means fewer jobs. It balances.
Indeed one way to solve your first problem is though the second. Offer plenty of construction jobs to build new homes.
In the round and with a largely unregulated and un-unionised economy, that's broadly true (though there are still limits in extreme cases) but it's only true because wages, prices, rents and the like may be driven up or down to rebalance, which may well cause more harm than good.
Given we have a lack of demand in the economy (and in the eurozone as a whole), even with the large increases in population, is that really logical?
The Eurozone is already struggling with job creation for the young people it already has.
Yes it is. The lack of job creation in certain parts of Europe has nothing to do with population numbers. The solution to Greece's problems is sorting out the economic regulations etc not capping the population.
Let's imagine a train carriage with 50 seats and room for 25 standing
If there were 75 people in the carriage, those people were feeling squashed, and someone suggested adding 25 more, the people in the carriage would think it was crazy
If there were 50 people,all sitting, in the carriage and 3 people got on, there would be no problem
If there were 75 people but 50 alighted and 25 got on there would be no problem either
Antifrank seems to think an increase on top of what people are already uncomfortable with is the same as one on top of what people are ok with
Except the train is not full. Let's say you think we can fit in 100k per year. Over a decade that's a net one million. Even if we add 120k to our record numbers that is net less than half of that.
The differential is time not space.
The numbers are largely irrelevant. It's the behaviour and attitudes of a relatively small proportion of the people coming in that causing the disquiet.
There are economic and housing questions but the main driver in the hostility to immigration is culture.
Let's imagine a train carriage with 50 seats and room for 25 standing
If there were 75 people in the carriage, those people were feeling squashed, and someone suggested adding 25 more, the people in the carriage would think it was crazy
If there were 50 people,all sitting, in the carriage and 3 people got on, there would be no problem
If there were 75 people but 50 alighted and 25 got on there would be no problem either
Antifrank seems to think an increase on top of what people are already uncomfortable with is the same as one on top of what people are ok with
Antifrank - I think you're starting point is wrong. In my opinion you should go back to 2001 when the population was 59m. In the following 10 years the population increased by 4m - a rise of 6%. In some contexts 6% might not make much difference, but in this context it's quite a big increase. That the country has coped is not the point. We now have a housing shortage which is most acutely felt in London and the South East. Adding 120k a year to the net immigration of 300k is only going to exacerbate the problem. As Isam has rightly pointed out, the country's sympathy for asylum seekers would be far greater had we had control of economic immigration in the past decade.
Given the housing position we are in, and the position which the NHS is in. can you really says we've coped, or will cope in the future?
Well, to be honest, I don't know. People are very good at making do. Whether they should have to is another matter. I have friends who are doctors who are forever posting scare stories about how the NHS is about to collapse, but they seem to think the Tories are to blame for reorganizations and spending cuts.
Senegal is a stable West African democracy, and Kothiary has profited from the currents of globalization transforming rural Africa’s more prosperous areas. Flat screen TVs and, increasingly, cars—mostly purchased with money wired home by villagers working in Europe—have reshaped what was once a settlement of mud huts. The wealth has plugged this isolated landscape of peanut farms and baobab trees into the global economy and won respect for the men who sent it.
But it has also put European living standards on real-time display, and handed young farm hands the cash to buy a ticket out.
It would appear that Hungary is the only EU country to have some gonads.. as in.. This far and no further.. We will process you and economic migrants will be sent back.. genuine refugees will be considered..
GE 2015 saw politicians keenly aware of housing problems in this country desperately trying to out do each other with regard to the number of homes that could be built. And in recent months these threads have been awash with discussions about building on brownfield sites and the Green Belt to alleviate shortages of residential property.
Anyone tell me where Cooper's 10,000 a month are going to live please?
The reality is that if immigration keeps outstripping housing supply, we will:
a) see more people living in slum conditions - 10 people in a terraced house or people sleeping in garden sheds b) see an increase in homelessness and camps of rough sleepers
The other assumption is that because we have a growing economy there is an unlimited supply of jobs for people to take. Surely at some point we will end up with oversupply and if the economy stalls then I would expect unemployment to move up sharply.
Jobs are never a finite resource. More people cause more demand causes more jobs. Fewer people means fewer [less] demand means fewer jobs. It balances.
Indeed one way to solve your first problem is though the second. Offer plenty of construction jobs to build new homes.
In the round and with a largely unregulated and un-unionised economy, that's broadly true (though there are still limits in extreme cases) but it's only true because wages, prices, rents and the like may be driven up or down to rebalance, which may well cause more harm than good.
Given we have a lack of demand in the economy (and in the eurozone as a whole), even with the large increases in population, is that really logical?
The Eurozone is already struggling with job creation for the young people it already has.
Yes it is. The lack of job creation in certain parts of Europe has nothing to do with population numbers. The solution to Greece's problems is sorting out the economic regulations etc not capping the population.
I'm not sure the arguement to a young person in europe that having more people chasing the jobs they would want is a great one.
i'm not sure someone on a housing waiting list that there should be more people needing housing is a great one.
Let's imagine a train carriage with 50 seats and room for 25 standing
If there were 75 people in the carriage, those people were feeling squashed, and someone suggested adding 25 more, the people in the carriage would think it was crazy
If there were 50 people,all sitting, in the carriage and 3 people got on, there would be no problem
If there were 75 people but 50 alighted and 25 got on there would be no problem either
Antifrank seems to think an increase on top of what people are already uncomfortable with is the same as one on top of what people are ok with
Except the train is not full. Let's say you think we can fit in 100k per year. Over a decade that's a net one million. Even if we add 120k to our record numbers that is net less than half of that.
The differential is time not space.
The numbers are largely irrelevant. It's the behaviour and attitudes of a relatively small proportion of the people coming in that causing the disquiet.
There are economic and housing questions but the main driver in the hostility to immigration is culture.
100% agreed.
I'd be perfectly OK with even higher migration than we have now with the quid pro quo that the migrants respect and adapt to our culture. Eliminate the pandering to self appointed so call community leaders and the acceptable racism of dividing people by race or culture that is epitomised by the likes of Eg Labour and Yasmin Ali Brown (sp?).
It would appear that Hungary is the only EU country to have some gonads.. as in.. This far and no further.. We will process you and economic migrants will be sent back.. genuine refugees will be considered..
@isam glad you are so grown up as to sneer at the idea of showing compassion to people.
What a wonderful society we have created in this country. The majority of posts in this thread show a complete disregard for the plight of other human beings. Very few politicians have said anything about immigration which doesn't pander to the selfishness in the public.
Could there just possibly be a connection between that and the rise of Corbyn, who, for all his faults, at least doesn't come over like a botoxed PR salesman?
You got it - the British are just selfish b*******. Why else did they just vote in a Tory govt? Apparently there's plenty of room in Russia. I might even buy your ticket - so long as it's one way.
Italy is ready to impose identification checks at Brennero on the border with Austria after receiving a request from Germany for help in easing the flow of migrants into Bavaria, the northern province of Bolzano said Wednesday.
Rome was ready to "reactivate" controls just as it did for the G7 in June, as "a temporary measure to allow Bavaria to reorganise and face the emergency", a statement from the province said.
GE 2015 saw politicians keenly aware of housing problems in this country desperately trying to out do each other with regard to the number of homes that could be built. And in recent months these threads have been awash with discussions about building on brownfield sites and the Green Belt to alleviate shortages of residential property.
Anyone tell me where Cooper's 10,000 a month are going to live please?
The reality is that if immigration keeps outstripping housing supply, we will:
a) see more people living in slum conditions - 10 people in a terraced house or people sleeping in garden sheds b) see an increase in homelessness and camps of rough sleepers
The other assumption is that because we have a growing economy there is an unlimited supply of jobs for people to take. Surely at some point we will end up with oversupply and if the economy stalls then I would expect unemployment to move up sharply.
Jobs are never a finite resource. More people cause more demand causes more jobs. Fewer people means fewer [less] demand means fewer jobs. It balances.
Indeed one way to solve your first problem is though the second. Offer plenty of construction jobs to build new homes.
In the round and with a largely unregulated and un-unionised economy, that's broadly true (though there are still limits in extreme cases) but it's only true because wages, prices, rents and the like may be driven up or down to rebalance, which may well cause more harm than good.
Given we have a lack of demand in the economy (and in the eurozone as a whole), even with the large increases in population, is that really logical?
The Eurozone is already struggling with job creation for the young people it already has.
Yes it is. The lack of job creation in certain parts of Europe has nothing to do with population numbers. The solution to Greece's problems is sorting out the economic regulations etc not capping the population.
I'm not sure the arguement to a young person in europe that having more people chasing the jobs they would want is a great one.
i'm not sure someone on a housing waiting list that there should be more people needing housing is a great one.
The idea of more people chasing the same number of jobs is economic codswallop though. I wouldn't pander to economic illiteracy of Corbynites so why pander to that?
Housing is a different question as it takes time to build more houses. Though remove the green belt and we could build many millions of new homes.
One of the reasons you are looking silly is that net migration is at a record high, concern over migration is at a record high, and you think adding 33% extra on top is 'not very much at all'
Your example of a 200% increase and your isamland nonsense are irrelevant as the context here is one of a time of record net migration, whereas your examples are using a time of either falling or zero migration.
Stop the generic slurs or I'll start thinking it must be your time of the month
In other words, "don't answer me with logic". Your metric is bullshit as my two examples show clearly.
Nono it's more "I am right and you are wrong"
You are dead right @isam. There is now turmoil in the heart of the European enterprise. Clever fuhrer Merkel's dream of leading all of Europe under German hegemony is now being exposed as never before. The more she pushes more migrants into Germany and the rest of Europe, the more the people seethe. An explosion is nigh this autumn.
Is Merkel really in favour of letting in 800,000 migrants into Germany? That's 1% of their total population!
MD..Good.. but Holland is hardly a frontline country.. they must have travelled right across a few others to get there..where they should have been stopped..This entire fiasco is not looking good for Europe or for the stay in vote..
@isam glad you are so grown up as to sneer at the idea of showing compassion to people.
What a wonderful society we have created in this country. The majority of posts in this thread show a complete disregard for the plight of other human beings. Very few politicians have said anything about immigration which doesn't pander to the selfishness in the public.
Could there just possibly be a connection between that and the rise of Corbyn, who, for all his faults, at least doesn't come over like a botoxed PR salesman?
You got it - the British are just selfish b*******. Why else did they just vote in a Tory govt? Apparently there's plenty of room in Russia. I might even buy your ticket - so long as it's one way.
I think Mongolia is the least densely populated sovereign nation that is a member of the UN in its own right
Dr. Prasannan, I'd forgotten that. Does strike one as peculiar. What's more feminine than a maiden?
Mr. Thompson, there was a chap who had a high profile change. Jenner? I wonder if his kids refer to him as mother or father.
Caitlyn Jenner and Kelly Malone are the two highest profile changers I can think of.
Only at the weekend by the looks of things. Thais and other asians seem to be better transexuals than men of European stock. Our shoulders are generally far too wide !
Mr. Dodd, it *might* affect the vote. But that's some time away.
I think most of those who were upset with the way the Greek crisis was/has been/is handled and over migration (either because we're being too mean or too nice) will quietly put a cross next to In.
Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent. EurActiv Germany reports.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
@isam glad you are so grown up as to sneer at the idea of showing compassion to people.
What a wonderful society we have created in this country. The majority of posts in this thread show a complete disregard for the plight of other human beings. Very few politicians have said anything about immigration which doesn't pander to the selfishness in the public.
Could there just possibly be a connection between that and the rise of Corbyn, who, for all his faults, at least doesn't come over like a botoxed PR salesman?
You got it - the British are just selfish b*******. Why else did they just vote in a Tory govt? Apparently there's plenty of room in Russia. I might even buy your ticket - so long as it's one way.
I think Mongolia is the least densely populated sovereign nation that is a member of the UN in its own right
The idea of more people chasing the same number of jobs is economic codswallop though. I wouldn't pander to economic illiteracy of Corbynites so why pander to that?
Housing is a different question as it takes time to build more houses. Though remove the green belt and we could build many millions of new homes.
Great idea. Let's wipe out thousands of hectares of green and pleasant countryside to build homes for Syrians and Ghanaians at our expense.
GE 2015 saw politicians keenly aware of housing problems in this country desperately trying to out do each other with regard to the number of homes that could be built. And in recent months these threads have been awash with discussions about building on brownfield sites and the Green Belt to alleviate shortages of residential property.
Anyone tell me where Cooper's 10,000 a month are going to live please?
The reality is that if immigration keeps outstripping housing supply, we will:
a) see more people living in slum conditions - 10 people in a terraced house or people sleeping in garden sheds b) see an increase in homelessness and camps of rough sleepers
In the round and with a largely unregulated and un-unionised economy, that's broadly true (though there are still limits in extreme cases) but it's only true because wages, prices, rents and the like may be driven up or down to rebalance, which may well cause more harm than good.
Given we have a lack of demand in the economy (and in the eurozone as a whole), even with the large increases in population, is that really logical?
The Eurozone is already struggling with job creation for the young people it already has.
Yes it is. The lack of job creation in certain parts of Europe has nothing to do with population numbers. The solution to Greece's problems is sorting out the economic regulations etc not capping the population.
I'm not sure the arguement to a young person in europe that having more people chasing the jobs they would want is a great one.
i'm not sure someone on a housing waiting list that there should be more people needing housing is a great one.
The idea of more people chasing the same number of jobs is economic codswallop though. I wouldn't pander to economic illiteracy of Corbynites so why pander to that?
Housing is a different question as it takes time to build more houses. Though remove the green belt and we could build many millions of new homes.
We 'could' built millions of more houses of course. But then we put more strain on already difficult resources. Water, electricity, food and so on.
The question is where is this going, and where is it ending. Is ultimately the UK being one mega-city/suburb going to happen however long down the line.
@isam glad you are so grown up as to sneer at the idea of showing compassion to people.
What a wonderful society we have created in this country. The majority of posts in this thread show a complete disregard for the plight of other human beings. Very few politicians have said anything about immigration which doesn't pander to the selfishness in the public.
Could there just possibly be a connection between that and the rise of Corbyn, who, for all his faults, at least doesn't come over like a botoxed PR salesman?
You got it - the British are just selfish b*******. Why else did they just vote in a Tory govt? Apparently there's plenty of room in Russia. I might even buy your ticket - so long as it's one way.
I think Mongolia is the least densely populated sovereign nation that is a member of the UN in its own right
Has the Sunil declared for Corbyn yet ?
Yeah, a couple of Sundays ago in fact (I cast my e-ballot on the night of the 21st).
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Jezza, for lack of a better word, is good. Jezza is right, Jezza works. Jezza clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the (R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK! Thank you very much.
The idea of more people chasing the same number of jobs is economic codswallop though. I wouldn't pander to economic illiteracy of Corbynites so why pander to that?
Housing is a different question as it takes time to build more houses. Though remove the green belt and we could build many millions of new homes.
If you increase the radius of London by 10 miles all the way around, you'll still add to the congestion and gridlock in central London.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK?
Every year half a million or more immigrants arrive and a couple of hundred thousand people leave Britain. In the context of those numbers, 120,000 a year really isn't very much at all.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
The problem is that everyone, including governments and the EU, is talking numbers without having the slightest idea how accurate they are now, never mind what they might become. The EU has to find the pause button as a priority before thinking about a permanent solution (if there is one). The situation is not helped by the now seemingly deranged Merkel saying "c'mon in, everyone's welcome". A German politician said on radio this morning that Germany has more Balkan immigrants than Syrian and suggested that Germany would send those back to make room for more Syrians. I thought some of our lot were deluded!
At least everyone (except the BBC) seems now to accept that these illegal immigrants are not overwhelmingly refugees. The pictures of them on TV make many of them look like they're going on holiday, a pretty chaotic one granted.
From being a solid REMAIN, I'm now pretty much a LEAVER. Never mind what the economic consequences may or may not be, I'm concerned about the country that my grandchildren might have to grow up in, particularly as they're girls.
Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent. EurActiv Germany reports.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
Watford30.. Why not.. it would soon look like Syria and make then more comfortable..If I wanted to live in a effin desert then I would move to one..I don't want one in the middle of the UK.
Europe represents democracies which are fundamentally interested in helping people. So migrants are not likely to go to Russia, or China and the USA is too far away. Sadly, Labour showed weakness when it came to the option of helping Syrian rebels and some tory backbenchers like David Davis (both of them!) showed stupidity. So much for it being the left of the tory party that is not willing to act!
This background makes it almost impossible to strike at places where the problem is fermented. It set up the problem of ISIS in Syria and now we have the daft situation where even when RAF pilots are on secondment to the USAF the opposition and media complain about them bombing Syrian targets. So really - a national government? The UN should be the place where these issues are resolved but it too is spineless.
So we should have done as Cameron wanted and bombed the forces inside Syria that were actually fighting IS. Oh I am sure that would have done wonders for the region. In case you missed it we had lots of jolly japes bombing Government forces in Libya and as a result the country is a basket case.
Pillock.
There's no need to be rude to people. We can strongly disagree with each other without being disagreeable.
He and any other Friend of Farage can call me 'pillock' all he wants but that does not stop the fact that Assad was a crony to ISIS when it suited him and not attacking Assad and supporting the 'genuine' rebels allowed ISIS to gain traction and was a betrayal of the rebels. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/08/barack-obama-betrayed-syrian-people-150822084544918.html The above writer blames Obama of course and the vote in parliament gave Obama all the cover he needed. Cameron wanted to bomb Assad and Miliband and Davis between them stopped it. Syrian refugees are the result. But as someone else said - because we did not bomb Syria when we had the chance we will never know what might have happened. But what the vote did was make any other attempt at intervention difficult to say the least. (We saw the complaints about RAF pilots flying with the USAF). So as long as misery is fermented in the world and we stand back and do nothing then the world will be full of migrants.
Fomented. Fermenting is something quite different.
Let's imagine a train carriage with 50 seats and room for 25 standing
If there were 75 people in the carriage, those people were feeling squashed, and someone suggested adding 25 more, the people in the carriage would think it was crazy
If there were 50 people,all sitting, in the carriage and 3 people got on, there would be no problem
If there were 75 people but 50 alighted and 25 got on there would be no problem either
Antifrank seems to think an increase on top of what people are already uncomfortable with is the same as one on top of what people are ok with
Except the train is not full. Let's say you think we can fit in 100k per year. Over a decade that's a net one million. Even if we add 120k to our record numbers that is net less than half of that.
The differential is time not space.
The numbers are largely irrelevant. It's the behaviour and attitudes of a relatively small proportion of the people coming in that causing the disquiet.
There are economic and housing questions but the main driver in the hostility to immigration is culture.
100% agreed.
I'd be perfectly OK with even higher migration than we have now with the quid pro quo that the migrants respect and adapt to our culture. Eliminate the pandering to self appointed so call community leaders and the acceptable racism of dividing people by race or culture that is epitomised by the likes of Eg Labour and Yasmin Ali Brown (sp?).
Indeed. But its not going to happen. Cameron or his successor wouldn't go near such a policy and anyone to the left of them would have a heart attack at the mere thought.
That being the case we have to mitigate the cultural dislocation which is driving public concern to record levels by control immigration, if we don't they are likely to elect someone that will. That might seem fanciful, but ask yourself how many terrorist incidents we need that are perpetrated by an (illegal) immigrant, before the public insist on a very hard line.
Quite heated on here today, I've a question for those imploring that we show compassion etc.
Can you envisage a time when we say no to migrants of any description and if so when would that be? That might sound very finite, so do you ever envisage a time when numbers must be managed or controlled and if so what criteria would be used?
Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent. EurActiv Germany reports.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK?
Every year half a million or more immigrants arrive and a couple of hundred thousand people leave Britain. In the context of those numbers, 120,000 a year really isn't very much at all.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
The problem is that everyone, including governments and the EU, is talking numbers without having the slightest idea how accurate they are now, never mind what they might become. The EU has to find the pause button as a priority before thinking about a permanent solution (if there is one). The situation is not helped by the now seemingly deranged Merkel saying "c'mon in, everyone's welcome". A German politician said on radio this morning that Germany has more Balkan immigrants than Syrian and suggested that Germany would send those back to make room for more Syrians. I thought some of our lot were deluded!
At least everyone (except the BBC) seems now to accept that these illegal immigrants are not overwhelmingly refugees. The pictures of them on TV make many of them look like they're going on holiday, a pretty chaotic one granted.
From being a solid REMAIN, I'm now pretty much a LEAVER. Never mind what the economic consequences may or may not be, I'm concerned about the country that my grandchildren might have to grow up in, particularly as they're girls.
Merkel's actions, and arrogant expectations in the last week have tipped me into the 'Out' camp. Reluctantly, I might add.
Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent. EurActiv Germany reports.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent. EurActiv Germany reports.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
What is she planning to do with the 90% of those refugees that turn out to have no case for claiming asylum ?
Allow them to travel across and out of Germany to 'somewhere else' (i.e. Britain), under Schengen?
I currently live in a country with a population of about 120 million, growing by about 2% a year, almost all of which speak English and mostly earn less than 5 quid a day, come on everyone budge up a bit closer I am sure there is room if we squeeze.
Just for clarification, you are saying 33% extra on top of record levels is
'Not very much at all' ?
Just for clarification, in the context of a country of 64 million with long experience of substantial immigration and emigration, 120,000 a year is not very much at all.
Why give a politicians answer?
Current net migration is 360k
You are saying a 33% increase on that is
'Not very much at all'
Yes or no?
I'm not giving a politician's answer.
To give a non-politician's answer, I think you're framing the question in a statistically invalid way, that you are doing so because you approach the problem from a preconceived mindset and that hell would freeze over before you would ever reach the conclusion that Britain should take more refugees.
I haven't offered an opinion either way on the refugees. It just suits your narrow mind and need to be right to assume it.
How on earth is it statistically invalid to consider an extra 120k on top of an existing 360k as a 33% increase?
In what circumstances would you ever accept refugees?
When we can control our own borders without interference from the EU (by giving out passports) and the ECHR.
As I said, hell will freeze over before you would ever reach the conclusion that Britain should take more refugees.
...
It is just another example of how EU membership has warped our priorities and our own national interests.
Taken in isolation, 120,000 is not a large number. Added to 330,000 for net migration, or 600,000 for overall migration, it most certainly is.
I think the Conservative reforms on shutting bogus colleges, increasing settlement payments for spouses and capping non EU work permits have probably shaved 40-50k off where we'd otherwise be with net immigration. But that's not enough.
Yes I agree. Its probably worth looking as well at the breakdown of migration. This does not affect the numbers but it is still worthwhile. The ONS provisional estimates for 2014, plucked at random, say 193,000 (30%) came for formal study. This is a big number from out of the whole and I guess will stay somewhat the same with a regular churn of people coming and leaving. Just 108,000 came looking for work as opposed to 178,000 with jobs. Something around 80,000 are UK citizens returning home.
Yes I agree. Its probably worth looking as well at the breakdown of migration. This does not affect the numbers but it is still worthwhile. The ONS provisional estimates for 2014, plucked at random, say 193,000 (30%) came for formal study. This is a big number from out of the whole and I guess will stay somewhat the same with a regular churn of people coming and leaving. Just 108,000 came looking for work as opposed to 178,000 with jobs. Something around 80,000 are UK citizens returning home.
I strongly suspect that the number is well low of the "real" number, so it's useful for showing a trend, but should be treated with suspicion. It won't include the probably thousands of people that successfully stow away in trucks, or break through the chunnel defenses, or are delivered into quiet harbours on moonless nights and then disappear into our black economy.
Frau Fuhrer Merkel is in for a rude awakening. Sooner or later someone is going to point out that by offering to take 800,000 she has encouraged this mass movement of people. BTW since when does she decide which EU rules can be suspended or relaxed?
Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent. EurActiv Germany reports.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent. EurActiv Germany reports.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
What is she planning to do with the 90% of those refugees that turn out to have no case for claiming asylum ?
Allow them to travel across and out of Germany to 'somewhere else' (i.e. Britain), under Schengen?
I currently live in a country with a population of about 120 million, growing by about 2% a year, almost all of which speak English and mostly earn less than 5 quid a day,.
Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent. EurActiv Germany reports.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
What is she planning to do with the 90% of those refugees that turn out to have no case for claiming asylum ?
Allow them to travel across and out of Germany to 'somewhere else' (i.e. Britain), under Schengen?
We are not in Schengen. Can they travel legally under Schengen?
I take your point about the legality of travelling under Schengen, but since they're arriving en masse in Germany from elsewhere the whole agreement seems irrelevant now.
@isam glad you are so grown up as to sneer at the idea of showing compassion to people.
What a wonderful society we have created in this country. The majority of posts in this thread show a complete disregard for the plight of other human beings. Very few politicians have said anything about immigration which doesn't pander to the selfishness in the public.
Could there just possibly be a connection between that and the rise of Corbyn, who, for all his faults, at least doesn't come over like a botoxed PR salesman?
Mrs B - Is there a lack of compassion? Yes, you're probably right. Do I have any compassion? Honestly not much.
Why is that?
The short answer: The European Court of Human Rights
I accept that most immigrants want to get a job and obey the law. The problem is that wehn we do have "bad apples" it is almost impossible to get rid of them. Just look at Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza. To be blunt, the ECHR means that our immigration system favours the interests of the immigrants over the UK government and its citizens.
If we had a system where asylum seekers were on "probation" and could be deported much more easily and a system where we could ask people to leave if the situation improved in their home countries then I would be a lot more sympathetic.
Never been one to get too excited about immigration.
I find it odd some PB Tories are rattled by it.
Dave did promise to bring net migration down to tens of thousands. its just he forgot to mention it had hit at an all time peak of 33 ten thousands in the previous 12 months just 37 days before GE2015
Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent. EurActiv Germany reports.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
What is she planning to do with the 90% of those refugees that turn out to have no case for claiming asylum ?
Allow them to travel across and out of Germany to 'somewhere else' (i.e. Britain), under Schengen?
I currently live in a country with a population of about 120 million, growing by about 2% a year, almost all of which speak English and mostly earn less than 5 quid a day,.
If we had a system where asylum seekers were on "probation" and could be deported much more easily and a system where we could ask people to leave if the situation improved in their home countries then I would be a lot more sympathetic.
Quite right. 1 in, 1 out - replace the bad apples with good eggs !
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK?
Every year half a million or more immigrants arrive and a couple of hundred thousand people leave Britain. In the context of those numbers, 120,000 a year really isn't very much at all.
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
The problem is that everyone, including governments and the EU, is talking numbers without having the slightest idea how accurate they are now, never mind what they might become. The EU has to find the pause button as a priority before thinking about a permanent solution (if there is one). The situation is not helped by the now seemingly deranged Merkel saying "c'mon in, everyone's welcome". A German politician said on radio this morning that Germany has more Balkan immigrants than Syrian and suggested that Germany would send those back to make room for more Syrians. I thought some of our lot were deluded!
At least everyone (except the BBC) seems now to accept that these illegal immigrants are not overwhelmingly refugees. The pictures of them on TV make many of them look like they're going on holiday, a pretty chaotic one granted.
From being a solid REMAIN, I'm now pretty much a LEAVER. Never mind what the economic consequences may or may not be, I'm concerned about the country that my grandchildren might have to grow up in, particularly as they're girls.
Merkel's actions, and arrogant expectations in the last week have tipped me into the 'Out' camp. Reluctantly, I might add.
Where would 'Out' place us? 'In' the EEA? Where does 'Out' actually really leave us 'better off' ? Any trade deal just opens up the same issues as now. Free movement of labour and a single market. The reason for us needing negotiations is not just free movement of labour from Romania etc (an issue which seems to have been forgotten in the haze of non EU economic migration) it is the issue of the Euro and closer integration of the Eurozone. This is what might well move us to a more distant orbit around the EU. The EU will still be there and have an influence on us even if we are not in it.
It doesn't have to be by an illegal migrant. We already have terrorist incidents perpetrated by the sons of legal migrants, let in for doubtless valid reasons. The public will ask politicians to explain why more should be let in from the same group that those came from. And the answer is......?
The trouble is that we are constantly being told to be compassionate, to see the economic benefits etc - and we have been and we do - but we also see that our compassion is taken advantage of, that the economic benefits do not accrue to all fairly, that there are economic costs which, again, are not shared fairly - and that the problems - particularly terrorism - seem to come, largely, from one group of migrants, the very same group that is in the news now. And it is not unreasonable to ask - based on previous experience - why we should repeat the same mistakes as before?
If France had known that allowing large scale immigration from its North African territories after they became independent would have led to the problems that exist in the banlieues now with disaffected Muslim youths, do you think that they would have followed the same policy? If we had known that allowing in opponents of various ghastly Middle Eastern regimes would have allowed them to radicalise youths here to the extent that they decided to perpetrate atrocities against British citizens, would we have been so quick to let them in?
The blunt fact is that large scale Muslim immigration into Europe has not been such a stunning success that we can be sanguine and laid back about the prospect of permitting more, particularly at a time when the Muslim world is riven with violence and extremism of a particularly sanguinary type and when the migrants would be coming from precisely the area where that extremism has arisen and has roots.
So the questions are: what are the criteria for those we decide to let in and how many do we let in?
Merkel's answer to the first question is to say that the criteria should be those who reach over the border first and shout the loudest. Of all the criteria to choose those strike me as the stupidest and least fair and the least moral. Her answer to the second is to say everyone.
She's not a visionary. She's floundering, like everyone else.
Never been one to get too excited about immigration.
I find it odd some PB Tories are rattled by it.
Dave did promise to bring net migration down to tens of thousands. its just he forgot to mention it had hit at an all time peak of 33 ten thousands in the previous 12 months just 37 days before GE2015
He forgot to mention that because he had promised at the previous election to get it down to 100,000 - no ifs, no buts.... and didn't quite make it.
(Before the Cameron Fanboiz start, EU immigration was well over 100k and he knew he couldn't do anything about that, so yes, it was a lie)
BBC interviewing nice German lady who has arranged for people to welcome migrants into their homes. Broadcasting House offering to accommodate any?
Alan Yentob should take the lead, and build a tent city in the grounds of his Tudor mansion in Somerset.
I thought GO would have offered an exemption from the bedroom tax for those on benefits prepared to house a migrant family in that spare box room by now
During the evacuation of children in the war, the billeting office had the power to compulsorily force people with large or many houses in the country to accept evacuees.
A reasonable solution (which would easily enable us to accept 10,000 migrants a month, as antifrank wants) is compulsory billeting.
They are compulsorily billeted on people with ample space to spare (which will coincidentally include the multi-property owning antifrank and tyson).
The evacuees stayed for 2 or 3 years until London and Liverpool were safe.
So, the migrants stay with their rich and affluent hosts for 2 or 3 years until Syria has returned to some semblance of normality.
Antifrank is right, It is no real problem. Many people do have plenty of houses and plenty of space, and they are the ones would should take on the temporary burden.
You need to learn to read. I mentioned 10,000 in a month, not 10,000 a month.
Though we could manage 10,000 a month too if we had to. Germany is expecting to take 800,000 this year.
Seriously, where will they live in the UK?
In case you hadn't noticed, Britain's population is expected to grow quite rapidly in coming decades.
From being a solid REMAIN, I'm now pretty much a LEAVER. Never mind what the economic consequences may or may not be, I'm concerned about the country that my grandchildren might have to grow up in, particularly as they're girls.
Merkel's actions, and arrogant expectations in the last week have tipped me into the 'Out' camp. Reluctantly, I might add.
That's pretty much me too. We have a duty to look after our own, first and foremost. Our pensioners, the education of our young, the health of our citizens. That can't be done whilst the EU is letting people through porous borders in massive numbers, who will then acquire a right to travel here.
The Referendum will become dominated by one question: who controls our borders? And those who believe it is Brussels will vote to take back control to ourselves by voting to LEAVE.
I will probably get tarred with the "Little Englander" brush by the usual suspects. But I was at least defending the link between foreign aid and GDP, when many others wanted to break that link. I'm not hard-hearted. But I am pragmatic. The way to deal with this issue is not once they have arrived in the EU, but whilst they are still outside of it.
Where would 'Out' place us? 'In' the EEA? Where does 'Out' actually really leave us 'better off' ? Any trade deal just opens up the same issues as now. Free movement of labour and a single market. The reason for us needing negotiations is not just free movement of labour from Romania etc (an issue which seems to have been forgotten in the haze of non EU economic migration) it is the issue of the Euro and closer integration of the Eurozone. This is what might well move us to a more distant orbit around the EU. The EU will still be there and have an influence on us even if we are not in it.
Christ on a bike, do you read anything anyone else writes, or are you just a script that pastes other peoples posts into Google and posts the reply ?
EEA does not require us to pay anyone benefit.
EEA does not require us to admit someone who does not have a job
EEA does not require us to apply any regulations except where we are exporting to the EU
EEA lets us throw out criminals and other undesirables.
I told you this yesterday, and Mr Tyndall has told you this several times and yet you still are not listening.
More than half of Scots would vote for independence if a second referendum were held tomorrow, according to a poll commissioned by STV.
The Ipsos Mori survey shows 53% would vote yes, 44% would vote no and 3% are undecided.
This is the first poll since the referendum last September which says the country would vote yes when those who are undecided are included.
The 1002 participants were polled between Monday and Sunday last week.
The poll also shows the SNP are likely to have a majority government after next May’s Holyrood election, with a projected 74 out of 129 MSPs.
The party would get 55% of the constituency vote and 50% of the list vote, both up from their performance in the 2011 election when they formed a majority Scottish government for the first time.
Labour are predicted to fare worse than four years ago, getting 20% of the constituency vote and 20% of the list vote. According to seat projection site ScotlandVote, this would leave the party with 26 MSPs, down from their current 37.
If we had a system where asylum seekers were on "probation" and could be deported much more easily and a system where we could ask people to leave if the situation improved in their home countries then I would be a lot more sympathetic.
Quite right. 1 in, 1 out - replace the bad apples with good eggs !
Strictly, NZ isn't yet replacing its flag. It had a competition to decide the four candidates to be voted upon. The winner of that vote will then go to head to head with the existing flag in a referendum to decide if the people want to change it.
Where would 'Out' place us? 'In' the EEA? Where does 'Out' actually really leave us 'better off' ? Any trade deal just opens up the same issues as now. Free movement of labour and a single market. The reason for us needing negotiations is not just free movement of labour from Romania etc (an issue which seems to have been forgotten in the haze of non EU economic migration) it is the issue of the Euro and closer integration of the Eurozone. This is what might well move us to a more distant orbit around the EU. The EU will still be there and have an influence on us even if we are not in it.
Christ on a bike, do you read anything anyone else rights, or are you just a script that pastes other peoples posts into Google and posts the reply ?
EEA does not require us to pay anyone benefit.
EEA does not require us to admit someone who does not have a job
EEA does not require us to apply any regulations except where we are exporting to the EU
I told you this yesterday, and Mr Tyndall has told you this several times and yet you still are not listening.
I can confirm Mr Flightpath does not own a bike and is actually a very naughty boy rather than the Messiah
Let's imagine a train carriage with 50 seats and room for 25 standing
... Antifrank seems to think an increase on top of what people are already uncomfortable with is the same as one on top of what people are ok with
Except the train is not full. Let's say you think we can fit in 100k per year. Over a decade that's a net one million. Even if we add 120k to our record numbers that is net less than half of that.
The differential is time not space.
The numbers are largely irrelevant. It's the behaviour and attitudes of a relatively small proportion of the people coming in that causing the disquiet.
There are economic and housing questions but the main driver in the hostility to immigration is culture.
100% agreed.
I'd be perfectly OK with even higher migration than we have now with the quid pro quo that the migrants respect and adapt to our culture. Eliminate the pandering to self appointed so call community leaders and the acceptable racism of dividing people by race or culture that is epitomised by the likes of Eg Labour and Yasmin Ali Brown (sp?).
One aspect that we need to grapple with is that people don't all have the same concerns. Some people ARE worried about numbers - they think that immigration overloads the NHS, roads, housing, schools, etc. They are to some extent appeased if it's shown that the same people staff the NHS, help build more roads, etc. They don't necessarily care whether the building workers are Muslims or only eat halal or ignore local social groups. Others, like yourselves, aren't especially worried by numbers, but about culture. Others feel a more nebulous unease about rapid change - they hear a lot of languages on the bus and it doesn't feel like home any more. There can be a bit of racism in that, but not necessarily - some people are fine with West Indians talking broad Cockney or Brummie, but unhappy about Bulgarians.
We don't have to share all or any of these concerns, but to discuss the issue sensibly we need to know they exist. IMO the real burning issue is the sense of loss of control. Tony Blair once put it to me this way (recalled from memory, probably not exact words): "If we announced we were going to give asylum to X more refugees every year, people would accept it. What scares them is reports of people coming through the Chunnel hanging onto the undercarriage of trains and stuff like that, as they think it means we've lost control. People will tolerate a government doing things that they don't necessarily like, but they won't tolerate a government that has lost its grip."
Never been one to get too excited about immigration.
I find it odd some PB Tories are rattled by it.
Dave did promise to bring net migration down to tens of thousands. its just he forgot to mention it had hit at an all time peak of 33 ten thousands in the previous 12 months just 37 days before GE2015
Speaking personally I am not rattled by it. To put it in precis Our current net immigration is too high but I would suggest as far as the EU is concerned, and no matter what the problems are now, those figures are broadly transitory and will become lower once the economies of the later entrants grow. What is also too high and should concern us is the level of numbers on benefits who could actually work. As it is immigrants have filled the growing number of jobs that have been created instead of UK citizens. What does concern me is the sudden mass movement of economic migrants who are not strictly asylum seekers. This is a world wide phenomenon and it seems that there is little sight of any end to it. Why not look at that issue in a serious way?
Strictly, NZ isn't yet replacing its flag. It had a competition to decide the four candidates to be voted upon. The winner of that vote will then go to head to head with the existing flag in a referendum to decide if the people want to change it.
/vexillographer mode ----------- There's a second 'L' missing.
''I find it odd some PB Tories are rattled by it.''
The immigration issue is not about immigration.
It is about control.
Yep,even if we take a low number like ten thousand,what does that solve ? The mass immigration to Europe will continue until the EU countries get tough policies and get some control of the situation.
If it could keep it up at that rate, the lamb would shake its tail 100,000,000 a second. Assuming one shake is moving to one side and back, then the tip of the tail would traverse approx 1 metre in a shake. So in one second the tip of a lamb's tail would traverse approx 100,000,000 metres, which is one-third the speed of light. I don't think 0.3c is big enough to cause noticeable relativistic mass distortion, but you would have some time distortion.
If we assume that this frolicsome lamb has a tail weighing 1 kg, then it's moving 1 kg thru 100,000,000 metres in 1 second. So in one second it is doing 1 * 10^8 * ^ 10^8/1 joules of work, that's 1*10^16 joules. Since it's doing it in one second, conversion to watts is easy: it's 1*10^16 watts. So our industrious lamb is using power equivalent to one-tenth the amount of sunlight hitting the entire earth
On Sagan's formula for the Kardashev scale, the lamb would have a Kardashev rating of K=(logten of 10^16)-6/10= (16-6)/10 = 1, so Mary's little friend is a Type I civilisation in its own right and is generating more power than the whole of human civilisation in 1973 (K=0.7)...
...so has everybody stopped calling each other arseholes yet?
Yeah but when push comes to shove, they'll bottle it again.
For the same reason I have laid lot of my Corbyn winning profit.
I am far from convinced he is a certainty especially If the number of people who told me they were voting Corbyn who then bottled it when the 1,2,3 forms arrived is representative.
Mr. K, leaving the umlaut [tricky with a UK keyboard] aside, you mean 'Fuhrerin', I think [a suffix of -in feminises a German noun. I once asked my German teacher if a brother who had a sex change would be a Bruderin, but he was unsure].
It is ironic that WWII guilt is helping drive Germany's stance, at the same time as it tries to dictate policy to the rest of the EU.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Thompson, from the last figure, that would imply annual net migration of 450,000.
I bow to your expertise in the German lanuage, Morris.
Comments
SO said that these people are fleeing a bloodbath and are hardly likely to start one here. Well, up to a point, yes. But- as this article shows - http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/muslims-in-the-uk-are-now-attacking-mosques-does-that-make-them-islamophobic/ - the religious and other group hatreds do get imported. So this is not a negligible risk and it is one which should inform our approach to this issue.
I do think that we should try and do something to help: contributing to helping people in the area is one thing, taking in - up to a limit - genuine asylum seekers and focusing first on Christians and Yazidis who really are persecuted and face no future at all in the Middle East, regrettably, for now anyway - and then determining how many and which of the other migrants we want and can sensibly take without putting undue strain on our resources and social cohesion.
And finally our aim should be to give people temporary shelter so that all these educated professional people can eventually go home and create a worthwhile society in their homeland.
Mr. Thompson, there was a chap who had a high profile change. Jenner? I wonder if his kids refer to him as mother or father.
There are economic and housing questions but the main driver in the hostility to immigration is culture.
i'm not sure someone on a housing waiting list that there should be more people needing housing is a great one.
I'd be perfectly OK with even higher migration than we have now with the quid pro quo that the migrants respect and adapt to our culture. Eliminate the pandering to self appointed so call community leaders and the acceptable racism of dividing people by race or culture that is epitomised by the likes of Eg Labour and Yasmin Ali Brown (sp?).
Housing is a different question as it takes time to build more houses. Though remove the green belt and we could build many millions of new homes.
I think most of those who were upset with the way the Greek crisis was/has been/is handled and over migration (either because we're being too mean or too nice) will quietly put a cross next to In.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/social-europe-jobs/merkel-freezes-germanys-debate-over-new-immigration-law-312595
In reply to @Sunil
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that Jezza, for lack of a better word, is good. Jezza is right, Jezza works. Jezza clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the
(R)evolutionary spirit. Jezza, in all of his forms; Jezza for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And Jezza, you mark my words, will not only save the Labour Party, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the UK! Thank you very much.
At least everyone (except the BBC) seems now to accept that these illegal immigrants are not overwhelmingly refugees. The pictures of them on TV make many of them look like they're going on holiday, a pretty chaotic one granted.
From being a solid REMAIN, I'm now pretty much a LEAVER. Never mind what the economic consequences may or may not be, I'm concerned about the country that my grandchildren might have to grow up in, particularly as they're girls.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/17/8980161/angela-merkel-crying-girl
The article is from a liberal perspective ...
https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/637886222581391361
That being the case we have to mitigate the cultural dislocation which is driving public concern to record levels by control immigration, if we don't they are likely to elect someone that will. That might seem fanciful, but ask yourself how many terrorist incidents we need that are perpetrated by an (illegal) immigrant, before the public insist on a very hard line.
Can you envisage a time when we say no to migrants of any description and if so when would that be? That might sound very finite, so do you ever envisage a time when numbers must be managed or controlled and if so what criteria would be used?
(I'll get me coat!)
Its probably worth looking as well at the breakdown of migration. This does not affect the numbers but it is still worthwhile.
The ONS provisional estimates for 2014, plucked at random, say 193,000 (30%) came for formal study. This is a big number from out of the whole and I guess will stay somewhat the same with a regular churn of people coming and leaving. Just 108,000 came looking for work as opposed to 178,000 with jobs. Something around 80,000 are UK citizens returning home.
BTW since when does she decide which EU rules can be suspended or relaxed?
Broadcasting House offering to accommodate any?
Why is that?
The short answer: The European Court of Human Rights
I accept that most immigrants want to get a job and obey the law. The problem is that wehn we do have "bad apples" it is almost impossible to get rid of them. Just look at Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza. To be blunt, the ECHR means that our immigration system favours the interests of the immigrants over the UK government and its citizens.
If we had a system where asylum seekers were on "probation" and could be deported much more easily and a system where we could ask people to leave if the situation improved in their home countries then I would be a lot more sympathetic.
I find it odd some PB Tories are rattled by it.
Dave did promise to bring net migration down to tens of thousands. its just he forgot to mention it had hit at an all time peak of 33 ten thousands in the previous 12 months just 37 days before GE2015
Personally, I deplore Mrs B's lack of compassion. To those Britons who will have to shoulder the burden of coping with the extra refugees.
What a callous person.
Where does 'Out' actually really leave us 'better off' ? Any trade deal just opens up the same issues as now. Free movement of labour and a single market.
The reason for us needing negotiations is not just free movement of labour from Romania etc (an issue which seems to have been forgotten in the haze of non EU economic migration) it is the issue of the Euro and closer integration of the Eurozone. This is what might well move us to a more distant orbit around the EU. The EU will still be there and have an influence on us even if we are not in it.
The immigration issue is not about immigration.
It is about control.
It doesn't have to be by an illegal migrant. We already have terrorist incidents perpetrated by the sons of legal migrants, let in for doubtless valid reasons. The public will ask politicians to explain why more should be let in from the same group that those came from. And the answer is......?
The trouble is that we are constantly being told to be compassionate, to see the economic benefits etc - and we have been and we do - but we also see that our compassion is taken advantage of, that the economic benefits do not accrue to all fairly, that there are economic costs which, again, are not shared fairly - and that the problems - particularly terrorism - seem to come, largely, from one group of migrants, the very same group that is in the news now. And it is not unreasonable to ask - based on previous experience - why we should repeat the same mistakes as before?
If France had known that allowing large scale immigration from its North African territories after they became independent would have led to the problems that exist in the banlieues now with disaffected Muslim youths, do you think that they would have followed the same policy? If we had known that allowing in opponents of various ghastly Middle Eastern regimes would have allowed them to radicalise youths here to the extent that they decided to perpetrate atrocities against British citizens, would we have been so quick to let them in?
The blunt fact is that large scale Muslim immigration into Europe has not been such a stunning success that we can be sanguine and laid back about the prospect of permitting more, particularly at a time when the Muslim world is riven with violence and extremism of a particularly sanguinary type and when the migrants would be coming from precisely the area where that extremism has arisen and has roots.
So the questions are: what are the criteria for those we decide to let in and how many do we let in?
Merkel's answer to the first question is to say that the criteria should be those who reach over the border first and shout the loudest. Of all the criteria to choose those strike me as the stupidest and least fair and the least moral. Her answer to the second is to say everyone.
She's not a visionary. She's floundering, like everyone else.
(Before the Cameron Fanboiz start, EU immigration was well over 100k and he knew he couldn't do anything about that, so yes, it was a lie)
The Referendum will become dominated by one question: who controls our borders? And those who believe it is Brussels will vote to take back control to ourselves by voting to LEAVE.
I will probably get tarred with the "Little Englander" brush by the usual suspects. But I was at least defending the link between foreign aid and GDP, when many others wanted to break that link. I'm not hard-hearted. But I am pragmatic. The way to deal with this issue is not once they have arrived in the EU, but whilst they are still outside of it.
EEA does not require us to pay anyone benefit.
EEA does not require us to admit someone who does not have a job
EEA does not require us to apply any regulations except where we are exporting to the EU
EEA lets us throw out criminals and other undesirables.
I told you this yesterday, and Mr Tyndall has told you this several times and yet you still are not listening.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/1327913-stv-poll-scots-would-vote-yes-if-a-second-referendum-were-held-now/
More than half of Scots would vote for independence if a second referendum were held tomorrow, according to a poll commissioned by STV.
The Ipsos Mori survey shows 53% would vote yes, 44% would vote no and 3% are undecided.
This is the first poll since the referendum last September which says the country would vote yes when those who are undecided are included.
The 1002 participants were polled between Monday and Sunday last week.
The poll also shows the SNP are likely to have a majority government after next May’s Holyrood election, with a projected 74 out of 129 MSPs.
The party would get 55% of the constituency vote and 50% of the list vote, both up from their performance in the 2011 election when they formed a majority Scottish government for the first time.
Labour are predicted to fare worse than four years ago, getting 20% of the constituency vote and 20% of the list vote. According to seat projection site ScotlandVote, this would leave the party with 26 MSPs, down from their current 37.
It's all so easy to signal one's virtue - it's another when it comes to facing reality of those who it'll hit first and hardest.
Indeed.
Mini-me Jezzas from outside Labour currently fervently fomenting a fissile ferment.
/vexillographer mode
More than half of Scots would vote for independence if a second referendum were held tomorrow, according to a poll commissioned by STV.
The Ipsos Mori survey shows 53% would vote yes, 44% would vote no and 3% are undecided.
http://bit.ly/1JN139V
We don't have to share all or any of these concerns, but to discuss the issue sensibly we need to know they exist. IMO the real burning issue is the sense of loss of control. Tony Blair once put it to me this way (recalled from memory, probably not exact words): "If we announced we were going to give asylum to X more refugees every year, people would accept it. What scares them is reports of people coming through the Chunnel hanging onto the undercarriage of trains and stuff like that, as they think it means we've lost control. People will tolerate a government doing things that they don't necessarily like, but they won't tolerate a government that has lost its grip."
To put it in precis
Our current net immigration is too high but I would suggest as far as the EU is concerned, and no matter what the problems are now, those figures are broadly transitory and will become lower once the economies of the later entrants grow. What is also too high and should concern us is the level of numbers on benefits who could actually work. As it is immigrants have filled the growing number of jobs that have been created instead of UK citizens.
What does concern me is the sudden mass movement of economic migrants who are not strictly asylum seekers. This is a world wide phenomenon and it seems that there is little sight of any end to it.
Why not look at that issue in a serious way?
/vexillographer mode
-----------
There's a second 'L' missing.
/pedant mode
https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/639053518742138880
https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/639053835474989056
If it could keep it up at that rate, the lamb would shake its tail 100,000,000 a second. Assuming one shake is moving to one side and back, then the tip of the tail would traverse approx 1 metre in a shake. So in one second the tip of a lamb's tail would traverse approx 100,000,000 metres, which is one-third the speed of light. I don't think 0.3c is big enough to cause noticeable relativistic mass distortion, but you would have some time distortion.
If we assume that this frolicsome lamb has a tail weighing 1 kg, then it's moving 1 kg thru 100,000,000 metres in 1 second. So in one second it is doing 1 * 10^8 * ^ 10^8/1 joules of work, that's 1*10^16 joules. Since it's doing it in one second, conversion to watts is easy: it's 1*10^16 watts. So our industrious lamb is using power equivalent to one-tenth the amount of sunlight hitting the entire earth
On Sagan's formula for the Kardashev scale, the lamb would have a Kardashev rating of K=(logten of 10^16)-6/10= (16-6)/10 = 1, so Mary's little friend is a Type I civilisation in its own right and is generating more power than the whole of human civilisation in 1973 (K=0.7)...
...so has everybody stopped calling each other arseholes yet?
Specifically non EU migrants going straight to £50k+ / £30k - £50k / £15k - £30k / £15k- jobs say or some approximate measure ?
I am far from convinced he is a certainty especially If the number of people who told me they were voting Corbyn who then bottled it when the 1,2,3 forms arrived is representative.