To answer her question she speaks english and we do not speak her language because the UK conquered the world and is far superior to her country that has never done anything worth while or influenced anyone
We must come to terms that this may well happen, or it may well not. What is certain is that at some point in the future, this country will reach breaking point. What will follow will be absolutely ghastly.
Britain in the 70s, at a comprehensive so utterly appalling it would be closed down today. I was too busy avoiding being thrashed by sadistic teachers and the horde of school hardcases that were left unchecked to find time to learn anything. Not that there was much in the way of education on offer.
I'm originally from the East End too,you will never get it through to the so called "enlightened" that its the ordinary working class British born people that suffer the most from the worst of these ridiculous open border fiascos.
It seems that "equal opportunities migration " has reached a point where people defend it beyond all logical reason,allowing unskilled,poor,non english speakers is of absolutely no benefit to Britain in any way whatsoever but hey,let's not have that get in the way of being "enlightened"
But here's the thing, mickmars. (And this isn't wholly directed at you, but a more general response to the last few pages I've just had the pleasure of reading.)
With very few exceptions, those on DS who get on their soapboxes about immigration - and it is all one-way traffic, as the so-called "liberalista Left" or whatever trevgo called them don't tend to start threads on the subject - tend to hail from very specific, and after a while extremely predictable, parts of the country. And will invariably go off on a tear about the evils of immigration and prescribing UK-wide solutions for what is essentially a problem in their own backyard.
But the UK is more than the East End or Peterborough. So a policy that might suit the East End isn't necessarily a good idea for the UK as a whole. In fact, it could be quite the reverse - just as a policy that suited Chalfont St. Giles and few other places wouldn't be good for the UK as a whole either.
That, essentially, is my beef with those who incessantly start new threads on this topic - often whipped up by a few usual suspects who will cheerfully repost as a new thread on DS Politics every single mid-market tabloid sensationalised story that ever goes to print or gets published online. And it doesn't help when you read some of the highly inappropriate generalisations, whether it's about migrants or about those who are not necessarily lifting the lamp beside the proverbial golden door, and do not necessarily have some deep-seated animus against the UK - that's just silly, and also somewhat conceited, I have to say - but rather feel that it is necessary to point out the flaws in some of the statements and arguments made.
It is not being pro-immigration to point out that assuming that those 760,000 or so with a poor grasp of English are EU citizens is probably a bad assumption. Given that 51% of the EU speaks some English, there are more likely candidates to look for - a great many Somali refugees, for instance (being refugees, the default assumption is that they want to go home again and don't necessarily have any desire or feel any need to integrate). Or some women who married UK citizens, but had never set foot in the UK prior to marriage. Looking for answers amongst those sporting EU passports isn't the most obvious choice, and it probably isn't the correct one either.
Nor is it an act of self-loathing to cast doubt upon claims that hundreds of thousands of 2007 accession nationals will descend upon Heathrow and Dover.
Nor is it treasonous to question any of the other outlandish claims made by certain forum members from time to time (such as the claim that immigration has been at or near the top of the public's concerns for several years - I'm not sure of the source for that, but as I recall this is a relatively recent phenomenon, so maybe their definition of "several years" and mine differ).
And of course it is hardly unpatriotic to take some small amount of pleasure at a well-delivered smackdown (though the comment referring to the difficulties of our meat industry was perhaps premature) in response to a quite ignorant and inappropriate generalisation on the part of the OP.
Yes, I have some sympathy with trevgo's point - though floridetei may not thank me for this observation - that the Bulgarian and Romanian have some institutional weaknesses in the areas of crime and justice that perhaps ought to have rendered them unready for accession in 2007. EU accession has ever been two parts diplomatic fudge - an observation I've made before, as I'm sure you know - where foreign policy considerations tend to outweigh the domestic concerns of some individuals.
And yes, there are some issues with the benefits system. Is three months really an adequate time for one to be considered a 'worker' and therefore entitled to have one's income supplemented by State funding? It seems a bit short to me. Should child benefit be paid to out-of-state children? I can't see a good reason for doing so, if they're in the care of a parent or guardian in the same state who can claim child benefit from that state instead. And tax credits, I never understood and don't really agree with anyway.
(Not, incidentally, a sentiment that you'll hear too much from the 'left'.)
But I operate on three principles. One is, as the old yarn goes, being able to spot the difference between the things we can change and the things we can't.
Nothing, ever, is going to make the East End a paradise. Let's face it. And if residents weren't complaining about the Romanians they'd be complaining about the Somalis, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Bangladeshis, the Poles, the Jews or just about any other nationality, race or colour you care to name on this planet, right back to 1902 when the British Brothers League started kicking off about - what would you know - incresed migration into the East End from Eastern Europe. So can I get worked up about the East End contingent on DS preaching about the ills of immigration? Is it ever likely to convince me? Well, no. The East End isn't and never will be a microcosm of the UK, it isn't and never will be without its problems, and I very much suspect that immigration is and always will be scapegoated, and even where there are issues with the scale of immigration - a point I am prepared to concede - the notion that those issues are really on the scale that East End dwellers perceive it to be is not one I find convincing.
Which, incidentally, has nothing to do with either being or thinking that one is more "enlightened". It is simply that I do not live in the same United Kingdom as you.
The second - though I realise for some, especially those for whom immigration is some sort of overriding concern, that this may lead them to a different answer - is that we're signed up to various reciprocal agreements, and we honour those agreements and you take the bad with the good. If an agreement is clearly unfavourable then you either renegotiate it or end it. I do not think we tear up agreements willy-nilly, however: I am a firm believer in the rule of law, and I do not accept that that rule of law ends at national borders. I am not convinced that this one issue can be allowed to override all other considerations, just as I am not convinced that this one issue is as critical as some make it out to be.
And the third, which is perhaps a symptom of approaching middle age, is that if we're to make changes, especially changes in our international agreements, we do so with caution and in full knowledge - or at least as full as we can - of the ramifications. I don't think we're even remotely there yet.
But the UK is more than the East End or Peterborough. So a policy that might suit the East End isn't necessarily a good idea for the UK as a whole. In fact, it could be quite the reverse - just as a policy that suited Chalfont St. Giles and few other places wouldn't be good for the UK as a whole either.
That, essentially, is my beef with those who incessantly start new threads on this topic - often whipped up by a few usual suspects who will cheerfully repost as a new thread on DS Politics every single mid-market tabloid sensationalised story that ever goes to print or gets published online. And it doesn't help when you read some of the highly
Nothing, ever, is going to make the East End a paradise. Let's face it. Which, incidentally, has nothing to do with either being or thinking that one is more "enlightened". It is simply that I do not live in the same United Kingdom as you.
So in other words - lets suggest the 'East End' (although its east London Essex borders not Albert Square!) already has sufficient challenges/difficulties/strain on housing and public services. Indeed its so under strain that the local councils are having to house low income families hundreds of miles away and people are having to wait up to 11 hours to be seen at our local casualty.
And therefore the solution should be that it should be a condition that new EU migrants don't settle there - but instead locate to areas where there is surplus housing/spare public service capacity. How about your town - and your street?!:D
Or perhaps its just out of sight out of mind for you!
So in other words - lets suggest the East End already has sufficient challenges/difficulties/strain on housing and public services. Indeed its so under strain that the local councils are having to house families hundreds of miles away.
And therefore the solution should be that it should be a condition that new EU migrants don't settle there - but instead locate to areas where there is surplus housing/spare public service capacity. How about your town?!:D
I don't think Bristol would suffer unduly from having a few more EU migrants. Nor would my street, which I will not name in case some of the more unhinged of you are axe-murderers. Was that not the answer you expected?
I don't think Bristol would suffer unduly from having a few more EU migrants. Nor would my street, which I will not name in case some of the more unhinged of you are axe-murderers. Was that not the answer you expected?
Well I suggest you forward details of the spare housing in your area to Newham, Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Hackney and Barking and Dagenham etc councils. They are always on the look out for cheaper housing to meet their ever increasing demand outside the capital. If you believe the Govt census statistics Newham has had to accommodate a population increase of 70,000 or 33% in one year - so they could do with some help!
Well I suggest you forward details of the spare housing in your area to Newham, Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Hackney and Barking and Dagenham etc councils. They are always on the look out for cheaper housing to meet their ever increasing demand outside the capital. If you believe the Govt census statistics Newham has had to accommodate a population increase of 70,000 or 33% in one year - so they could do with some help!
You're belabouring the point, without really strengthening it. If anything your focus on the East End emphasises mine. The issue of allocating spare out-of-district housing is for the different councils to sort out - though I note how you shifted the goalposts there: your previous post did not mention state-provided housing, just more residents - or for a national Government to step in and help, if they can't. The point remains that just because places like Newham, Hackney and Barking are stretched, doesn't mean the entire country is at capacity. I know there's a tendency for Londoners to think the World ends where the Tube lines stop (except for South Londoners, who aren't blessed with much of a Tube service). It doesn't, though. There is actually quite a lot of country beyond them.
With very few exceptions, those on DS who get on their soapboxes about immigration - and it is all one-way traffic, as the so-called "liberalista Left" or whatever trevgo called them don't tend to start threads on the subject - tend to hail from very specific, and after a while extremely predictable, parts of the country. And will invariably go off on a tear about the evils of immigration and prescribing UK-wide solutions for what is essentially a problem in their own backyard.
It may be a flowery term, but you know full well to whom I am referring, and it describes them perfectly. They are not so reasonable as yourgoodself.
The reason why there are few threads opened about the benefits of immigration is because those protagonists who just can't get enough find it tricky to justify when pushed. It's why they resort to labeling everyone who voices such concerns as xenophobes. There are some who obviously pine for the sepia days of monocultural Britain, and who's language is not particularly sophisticated. As for the public's concerns, it is possibly over 2-3 years that the issue has scored highly. Go look up Gallup or any other organisations domestic polling over the period. It leapt up the list after the mass immigration of the Labour years, and hardly surprisingly so. Labour know this full well. You even get the odd apology from them.
Closed borders are not desirable, and measured and strictly controlled immigration is both necessary and adds to the variety of life in the country. What the country has undergone has not been measured or controlled, and the sheer scale has left us overwhelmed in some areas. So what if Chalfont St Giles has no problem? Does that negate Peterborough's? It actually amazes me how, even in the remotest parts of the country, it is still a Pole or Latvian who serves you at the bar. Areas that frequently have considerable unemployment.
If we are to remain in the EU, which I happen to believe we should, then free movement is at the core of the Union. I fully accept we can do nothing about it, but famously, we had no obligation to open our labour market when Labour disastrously decided to. It because of this freedom that the EU should have allowed enlargement at a sensible pace instead of rushing headlong in a politically driven move with little consideration given to economics. See also: "The Euro". One would have hoped they had learned the lesson, but no - Serbia is waiting in the wings.
It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to predict what happens when countries of vastly different wealth and opportunities, facilities, benefits, wage levels are made to drop their borders. It makes me ponder as to just how bright are those developing EU policy.
We have no option but to fulfill our obligations, but that does not preclude the stiffest control of benefits permissible, nor does it mean we have to translate everything into yet another two languages.
It may be a flowery term, but you know full well to whom I am referring, and it describes them perfectly. They are not so reasonable as yourgoodself.
The reason why there are few threads opened about the benefits of immigration is because those protagonists who just can't get enough find it tricky to justify when pushed. It's why they resort to labeling everyone who voices such concerns as xenophobes. There are some who obviously pine for the sepia days of monocultural Britain, and who's language is not particularly sophisticated. As for the public's concerns, it is possibly over 2-3 years that the issue has scored highly. Go look up Gallup or any other organisations domestic polling over the period. It leapt up the list after the mass immigration of the Labour years, and hardly surprisingly so. Labour know this full well. You even get the odd apology from them.
Closed borders are not desirable, and measured and strictly controlled immigration is both necessary and adds to the variety of life in the country. What the country has undergone has not been measured or controlled, and the sheer scale has left us overwhelmed in some areas. So what if Chalfont St Giles has no problem? Does that negate Peterborough's? It actually amazes me how, even in the remotest parts of the country, it is still a Pole or Latvian who serves you at the bar. Areas that frequently have considerable unemployment.
If we are to remain in the EU, which I happen to believe we should, then free movement is at the core of the Union. I fully accept we can do nothing about it, but famously, we had no obligation to open our labour market when Labour disastrously decided to. It because of this freedom that the EU should have allowed enlargement at a sensible pace instead of rushing headlong in a politically driven move with little consideration given to economics. See also: "The Euro". One would have hoped they had learned the lesson, but no - Serbia is waiting in the wings.
It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to predict what happens when countries of vastly different wealth and opportunities, facilities, benefits, wage levels are made to drop their borders. It makes me ponder as to just how bright are those developing EU policy.
We have no option but to fulfill our obligations, but that does not preclude the stiffest control of benefits permissible, nor does it mean we have to translate everything into yet another two languages.
I am not for one moment saying that Chalfont St. Giles' situation negates Peterborough's. Chalfont St. Giles I'm obviously using to represent one extreme of the bell-curve - as Peterborough is pretty close to the other end of the same. I clearly do not think the country should be run purely for the benefit of Chalfont St. Giles any more than I think it should be run purely for the benefit of Newham. I think either approach would be an unmitigated disaster - as do you.
The underlying point is that most of the country is somewhere in the middle, and the Government is there to govern for all the UK, not just the statistical outliers. And statistical outliers, where they exist, are not good areas for broad-brush generalised changes in national policy, such as radically changing our entire immigration and asylum system.
Where they're coupled with specific and measurable ill-effects - the whole 16-hour-week benefit trap is an obvious one - then clearly you've a general problem that requires a general solution, in that case welfare reform.
But in the case of housing, assuming of course that welfare reform doesn't resolve the issue on its own, then the real underlying issue is why people gravitate to places like Peterborough and Newham in the first place, and what we can do about it when (for instance) Scotland's First Minister would apparently welcome them with open arms.
As far as the whole EU angle is concerned, it's easy to point fingers at Brussels (fish, barrel, yadda yadda - and a whole separate thread could be devoted to the euro so I won't comment on that here). I know you don't do that, though some do. And like you I find it baffling that the last Labour Government didn't stop to think, when just about every other Member State had imposed transitional controls on A8 nationals, that maybe just out of prudence if nothing else it might be a good idea to do the same. But do you know who the consistent champion of enlargemnent throughout the years has been? Look no further than Whitehall...
I don't know. Maybe they figure it'll all average out in the end, that with open borders and a single market the standards of living will equalise in time. That does, of course, assume that there's no popular backlash at the social upheaval that's generated in the meantime. Fun times.
We have no option but to fulfill our obligations, but that does not preclude the stiffest control of benefits permissible, nor does it mean we have to translate everything into yet another two languages.
Many points well made - and far more eloquently than I could do.
We have of course had the debate today about funding social care for the elderly - people who in most cases have worked here and paid taxes all their lives being asked to pay hundreds of pounds a week from their own savings so they can live our their last few years in dignity (if they are lucky enough to get a place in a decent care home)
I do find it odd that we cannot find sufficient money to pay for their social care - yet are apparently so awash with cash that we are able to provide child benefit (at five times their rates) for children that have never even been to the UK or various benefits for working age EU nationals.
I realise stopping that won't fund social care - but its what makes people rather angry i.e. why can't we care for our frail elderly and disabled yet are obliged/can afford to provide tax credits, housing benefits, child benefits for non resident children etc for fit and healthy working age migrants from other EU states.
I know there's a tendency for Londoners to think the World ends where the Tube lines stop (except for South Londoners, who aren't blessed with much of a Tube service). It doesn't, though. There is actually quite a lot of country beyond them.
I certaintly don't think that - but I was born in London so I perhaps do care about what happens to it and its people and their services.
Our difficulty is though that rather a lot of people from outside the UK do think the world ends at zone 6!
I don't think Bristol would suffer unduly from having a few more EU migrants. Nor would my street, which I will not name in case some of the more unhinged of you are axe-murderers. Was that not the answer you expected?
How about 70,000 in one borough in one year?
Those were the figures the poster used.
Many points well made - and far more eloquently than I could do.
We have of course had the debate today about funding social care for the elderly - people who in most cases have worked here and paid taxes all their lives being asked to pay hundreds of pounds a week from their own savings so they can live our their last few years in dignity (if they are lucky enough to get a place in a decent care home)
I do find it odd that we cannot find sufficient money to pay for their social care - yet are apparently so awash with cash that we are able to provide child benefit (at five times their rates) for children that have never even been to the UK or various benefits for working age EU nationals.
I realise stopping that won't fund social care - but its what makes people rather angry i.e. why can't we care for our frail elderly and disabled yet are obliged/can afford to provide tax credits, housing benefits, child benefits for non resident children etc for fit and healthy working age migrants from other EU states.
Something sadly wrong indeed!
the relationship between Europe and our benefit system is cause for concern (however its oddly the only part of the benefit system the Tories are not happy to cut), but its worth remebering that plenty of care homes are staffed almost exclusively by Eastern Europeans, most likely agency staff.
How about 70,000 in one borough in one year?
Those were the figures the poster used.
A "few more"?
I don't know how the poster concluded that there was an increase of 70,000 in one borough in one year based on census returns, given that the census happens once a decade. Perhaps some clarification would be useful. According to the Census records I can find, the population increased by around 65,000 over a decade. It looks like someone's an order of magnitude out, here.
So was I, so I don't feel entirely unjustified in making that generalisation.
London is a strange city for all sorts of reasons, it's fair to say.
all to be fair this attitude is not unique to Londoners, its just easier to spot.
I live outside the city mentioned in my profile, and speaking to some people who live in the city, its like telling them, im from an imaginary land, that exists only when the Moon is in Gemini and Mars in Virgo.
It shows you how ridiculous things have become when (presumably) British forum posters stand up for the rights of those who aren't even here yet,against,British citizens who don't see any point of yet more unskilled poverty migration that is not in the interests of British people in any way,shape or form.
Yes, I have some sympathy with trevgo's point - though floridetei may not thank me for this observation - that the Bulgarian and Romanian have some institutional weaknesses in the areas of crime and justice that perhaps ought to have rendered them unready for accession in 2007. EU accession has ever been two parts diplomatic fudge - an observation I've made before, as I'm sure you know - where foreign policy considerations tend to outweigh the domestic concerns of some individuals.
I have absolutely no problem with you making this observation. We have a lot of weaknesses and we are aware of them trust me, we live the consequences.
I am certainly not here to advocate immigration in UK, I thought I made myself clear in my first post. I am conscious it can become a problem for any country not just UK. I replied just to emphasize the cheap shots and the inappropriate generalization, as you also pointed in an above paragraph.
@ allaorta:
To your first 2 questions, I rather not respond for the already said reasons. Regarding the Romas, they are a problem here also. The majorities do steal, scam, beg and we are ashamed with them, but they do not define Romania.
I want to return and explore Bucharest more, as we only had two nights there. Managed the tour of Ceaucescu's monstrous folly, which was simply jaw dropping in it's crassness, decrepitude and complete inappropriateness. The man was a monster, with an ego to match.
If you get the chance next time you’re here, try and talk with some elders about life under communism. the look in their eyes, their body language it’s ...something. I was only 7 years old in the autumn of ’89 and there is a day I will never forget. I remember being outside playing with two other children from my block; the street and sidewalks were covered by yellow and brown dry leaves, so silent; no cars, one or two adults passing by every few minutes. I was just a child and was repeating something I heard without knowing its meaning: “Down with Ceausescu!” I have no idea where he came from but, a man grabbed my hand and said “Don’t say that Again”. He wasn’t threatening me. The terror in his eyes! He was petrified hearing me saying that out loud and he was looking around to see who else heard me.
I have absolutely no problem with you making this observation. We have a lot of weaknesses and we are aware of them trust me, we live the consequences.
I am certainly not here to advocate immigration in UK, I thought I made myself clear in my first post. I am conscious it can become a problem for any country not just UK. I replied just to emphasize the cheap shots and the inappropriate generalization, as you also pointed in an above paragraph.
@ allaorta:
To your first 2 questions, I rather not respond for the already said reasons. Regarding the Romas, they are a problem here also. The majorities do steal, scam, beg and we are ashamed with them, but they do not define Romania.
If you get the chance next time you’re here, try and talk with some elders about life under communism. the look in their eyes, their body language it’s ...something. I was only 7 years old in the autumn of ’89 and there is a day I will never forget. I remember being outside playing with two other children from my block; the street and sidewalks were covered by yellow and brown dry leaves, so silent; no cars, one or two adults passing by every few minutes. I was just a child and was repeating something I heard without knowing its meaning: “Down with Ceausescu!” I have no idea where he came from but, a man grabbed my hand and said “Don’t say that Again”. He wasn’t threatening me. The terror in his eyes! He was petrified hearing me saying that out loud and he was looking around to see who else heard me.
I assume from "the already said reasons" that you are conceding the Romanians have a high criminal population and I think that's something most on here were already aware of and one of the reasons they're apprehensive about further immigration, particularly when it is from countries with significant crime levels. We already have a situation where immigrants or immigrant descendants already form a disproportionate part of the crime figures. We already have a situation where onetime relatively low crime market towns, now have substantial social and crime problems as a result of immigration, or migration if you wish to call it that, much of which accompanies a substantial influx from Eastern Europe. Many of these towns had a 20/25% immigrant explosion over a period of two or three years.
Now for the Romas. Isn't it true that in Romania, the Romas are persecuted for the very reasons you state and do you think that despite the small part of your population they constitute, a significantly higher percentage of them will depart than the percentage of those you regard as defining Romania?
Why would anyone in their right mind allow this to happen? The UK is going to collapse under the pressure one day.
"I must point out ... that the British nation is unique in this respect. They are the only people who like to be told how bad things are, who like to be told the worst, and like to be told that they are very likely to get much worse in the future and must prepare themselves for further reverses."
-Speech in the House of Commons, June 10, 1941, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
Comments
Oh? What country? Can't have been the UK.
He may refer to Uberliberalistia... but you can't get there because the flights are full.
Britain in the 70s, at a comprehensive so utterly appalling it would be closed down today. I was too busy avoiding being thrashed by sadistic teachers and the horde of school hardcases that were left unchecked to find time to learn anything. Not that there was much in the way of education on offer.
But here's the thing, mickmars. (And this isn't wholly directed at you, but a more general response to the last few pages I've just had the pleasure of reading.)
With very few exceptions, those on DS who get on their soapboxes about immigration - and it is all one-way traffic, as the so-called "liberalista Left" or whatever trevgo called them don't tend to start threads on the subject - tend to hail from very specific, and after a while extremely predictable, parts of the country. And will invariably go off on a tear about the evils of immigration and prescribing UK-wide solutions for what is essentially a problem in their own backyard.
But the UK is more than the East End or Peterborough. So a policy that might suit the East End isn't necessarily a good idea for the UK as a whole. In fact, it could be quite the reverse - just as a policy that suited Chalfont St. Giles and few other places wouldn't be good for the UK as a whole either.
That, essentially, is my beef with those who incessantly start new threads on this topic - often whipped up by a few usual suspects who will cheerfully repost as a new thread on DS Politics every single mid-market tabloid sensationalised story that ever goes to print or gets published online. And it doesn't help when you read some of the highly inappropriate generalisations, whether it's about migrants or about those who are not necessarily lifting the lamp beside the proverbial golden door, and do not necessarily have some deep-seated animus against the UK - that's just silly, and also somewhat conceited, I have to say - but rather feel that it is necessary to point out the flaws in some of the statements and arguments made.
It is not being pro-immigration to point out that assuming that those 760,000 or so with a poor grasp of English are EU citizens is probably a bad assumption. Given that 51% of the EU speaks some English, there are more likely candidates to look for - a great many Somali refugees, for instance (being refugees, the default assumption is that they want to go home again and don't necessarily have any desire or feel any need to integrate). Or some women who married UK citizens, but had never set foot in the UK prior to marriage. Looking for answers amongst those sporting EU passports isn't the most obvious choice, and it probably isn't the correct one either.
Nor is it an act of self-loathing to cast doubt upon claims that hundreds of thousands of 2007 accession nationals will descend upon Heathrow and Dover.
Nor is it treasonous to question any of the other outlandish claims made by certain forum members from time to time (such as the claim that immigration has been at or near the top of the public's concerns for several years - I'm not sure of the source for that, but as I recall this is a relatively recent phenomenon, so maybe their definition of "several years" and mine differ).
And of course it is hardly unpatriotic to take some small amount of pleasure at a well-delivered smackdown (though the comment referring to the difficulties of our meat industry was perhaps premature) in response to a quite ignorant and inappropriate generalisation on the part of the OP.
Yes, I have some sympathy with trevgo's point - though floridetei may not thank me for this observation - that the Bulgarian and Romanian have some institutional weaknesses in the areas of crime and justice that perhaps ought to have rendered them unready for accession in 2007. EU accession has ever been two parts diplomatic fudge - an observation I've made before, as I'm sure you know - where foreign policy considerations tend to outweigh the domestic concerns of some individuals.
And yes, there are some issues with the benefits system. Is three months really an adequate time for one to be considered a 'worker' and therefore entitled to have one's income supplemented by State funding? It seems a bit short to me. Should child benefit be paid to out-of-state children? I can't see a good reason for doing so, if they're in the care of a parent or guardian in the same state who can claim child benefit from that state instead. And tax credits, I never understood and don't really agree with anyway.
(Not, incidentally, a sentiment that you'll hear too much from the 'left'.)
But I operate on three principles. One is, as the old yarn goes, being able to spot the difference between the things we can change and the things we can't.
Nothing, ever, is going to make the East End a paradise. Let's face it. And if residents weren't complaining about the Romanians they'd be complaining about the Somalis, the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Bangladeshis, the Poles, the Jews or just about any other nationality, race or colour you care to name on this planet, right back to 1902 when the British Brothers League started kicking off about - what would you know - incresed migration into the East End from Eastern Europe. So can I get worked up about the East End contingent on DS preaching about the ills of immigration? Is it ever likely to convince me? Well, no. The East End isn't and never will be a microcosm of the UK, it isn't and never will be without its problems, and I very much suspect that immigration is and always will be scapegoated, and even where there are issues with the scale of immigration - a point I am prepared to concede - the notion that those issues are really on the scale that East End dwellers perceive it to be is not one I find convincing.
Which, incidentally, has nothing to do with either being or thinking that one is more "enlightened". It is simply that I do not live in the same United Kingdom as you.
The second - though I realise for some, especially those for whom immigration is some sort of overriding concern, that this may lead them to a different answer - is that we're signed up to various reciprocal agreements, and we honour those agreements and you take the bad with the good. If an agreement is clearly unfavourable then you either renegotiate it or end it. I do not think we tear up agreements willy-nilly, however: I am a firm believer in the rule of law, and I do not accept that that rule of law ends at national borders. I am not convinced that this one issue can be allowed to override all other considerations, just as I am not convinced that this one issue is as critical as some make it out to be.
And the third, which is perhaps a symptom of approaching middle age, is that if we're to make changes, especially changes in our international agreements, we do so with caution and in full knowledge - or at least as full as we can - of the ramifications. I don't think we're even remotely there yet.
So in other words - lets suggest the 'East End' (although its east London Essex borders not Albert Square!) already has sufficient challenges/difficulties/strain on housing and public services. Indeed its so under strain that the local councils are having to house low income families hundreds of miles away and people are having to wait up to 11 hours to be seen at our local casualty.
And therefore the solution should be that it should be a condition that new EU migrants don't settle there - but instead locate to areas where there is surplus housing/spare public service capacity. How about your town - and your street?!:D
Or perhaps its just out of sight out of mind for you!
I don't think Bristol would suffer unduly from having a few more EU migrants. Nor would my street, which I will not name in case some of the more unhinged of you are axe-murderers. Was that not the answer you expected?
Well I suggest you forward details of the spare housing in your area to Newham, Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Hackney and Barking and Dagenham etc councils. They are always on the look out for cheaper housing to meet their ever increasing demand outside the capital. If you believe the Govt census statistics Newham has had to accommodate a population increase of 70,000 or 33% in one year - so they could do with some help!
You're belabouring the point, without really strengthening it. If anything your focus on the East End emphasises mine. The issue of allocating spare out-of-district housing is for the different councils to sort out - though I note how you shifted the goalposts there: your previous post did not mention state-provided housing, just more residents - or for a national Government to step in and help, if they can't. The point remains that just because places like Newham, Hackney and Barking are stretched, doesn't mean the entire country is at capacity. I know there's a tendency for Londoners to think the World ends where the Tube lines stop (except for South Londoners, who aren't blessed with much of a Tube service). It doesn't, though. There is actually quite a lot of country beyond them.
It may be a flowery term, but you know full well to whom I am referring, and it describes them perfectly. They are not so reasonable as yourgoodself.
The reason why there are few threads opened about the benefits of immigration is because those protagonists who just can't get enough find it tricky to justify when pushed. It's why they resort to labeling everyone who voices such concerns as xenophobes. There are some who obviously pine for the sepia days of monocultural Britain, and who's language is not particularly sophisticated. As for the public's concerns, it is possibly over 2-3 years that the issue has scored highly. Go look up Gallup or any other organisations domestic polling over the period. It leapt up the list after the mass immigration of the Labour years, and hardly surprisingly so. Labour know this full well. You even get the odd apology from them.
Closed borders are not desirable, and measured and strictly controlled immigration is both necessary and adds to the variety of life in the country. What the country has undergone has not been measured or controlled, and the sheer scale has left us overwhelmed in some areas. So what if Chalfont St Giles has no problem? Does that negate Peterborough's? It actually amazes me how, even in the remotest parts of the country, it is still a Pole or Latvian who serves you at the bar. Areas that frequently have considerable unemployment.
If we are to remain in the EU, which I happen to believe we should, then free movement is at the core of the Union. I fully accept we can do nothing about it, but famously, we had no obligation to open our labour market when Labour disastrously decided to. It because of this freedom that the EU should have allowed enlargement at a sensible pace instead of rushing headlong in a politically driven move with little consideration given to economics. See also: "The Euro". One would have hoped they had learned the lesson, but no - Serbia is waiting in the wings.
It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to predict what happens when countries of vastly different wealth and opportunities, facilities, benefits, wage levels are made to drop their borders. It makes me ponder as to just how bright are those developing EU policy.
We have no option but to fulfill our obligations, but that does not preclude the stiffest control of benefits permissible, nor does it mean we have to translate everything into yet another two languages.
I am not for one moment saying that Chalfont St. Giles' situation negates Peterborough's. Chalfont St. Giles I'm obviously using to represent one extreme of the bell-curve - as Peterborough is pretty close to the other end of the same. I clearly do not think the country should be run purely for the benefit of Chalfont St. Giles any more than I think it should be run purely for the benefit of Newham. I think either approach would be an unmitigated disaster - as do you.
The underlying point is that most of the country is somewhere in the middle, and the Government is there to govern for all the UK, not just the statistical outliers. And statistical outliers, where they exist, are not good areas for broad-brush generalised changes in national policy, such as radically changing our entire immigration and asylum system.
Where they're coupled with specific and measurable ill-effects - the whole 16-hour-week benefit trap is an obvious one - then clearly you've a general problem that requires a general solution, in that case welfare reform.
But in the case of housing, assuming of course that welfare reform doesn't resolve the issue on its own, then the real underlying issue is why people gravitate to places like Peterborough and Newham in the first place, and what we can do about it when (for instance) Scotland's First Minister would apparently welcome them with open arms.
As far as the whole EU angle is concerned, it's easy to point fingers at Brussels (fish, barrel, yadda yadda - and a whole separate thread could be devoted to the euro so I won't comment on that here). I know you don't do that, though some do. And like you I find it baffling that the last Labour Government didn't stop to think, when just about every other Member State had imposed transitional controls on A8 nationals, that maybe just out of prudence if nothing else it might be a good idea to do the same. But do you know who the consistent champion of enlargemnent throughout the years has been? Look no further than Whitehall...
I don't know. Maybe they figure it'll all average out in the end, that with open borders and a single market the standards of living will equalise in time. That does, of course, assume that there's no popular backlash at the social upheaval that's generated in the meantime. Fun times.
Many points well made - and far more eloquently than I could do.
We have of course had the debate today about funding social care for the elderly - people who in most cases have worked here and paid taxes all their lives being asked to pay hundreds of pounds a week from their own savings so they can live our their last few years in dignity (if they are lucky enough to get a place in a decent care home)
I do find it odd that we cannot find sufficient money to pay for their social care - yet are apparently so awash with cash that we are able to provide child benefit (at five times their rates) for children that have never even been to the UK or various benefits for working age EU nationals.
I realise stopping that won't fund social care - but its what makes people rather angry i.e. why can't we care for our frail elderly and disabled yet are obliged/can afford to provide tax credits, housing benefits, child benefits for non resident children etc for fit and healthy working age migrants from other EU states.
Something sadly wrong indeed!
I certaintly don't think that - but I was born in London so I perhaps do care about what happens to it and its people and their services.
Our difficulty is though that rather a lot of people from outside the UK do think the world ends at zone 6!
How about 70,000 in one borough in one year?
Those were the figures the poster used.
A "few more"?
So was I, so I don't feel entirely unjustified in making that generalisation.
London is a strange city for all sorts of reasons, it's fair to say.
I don't know how the poster concluded that there was an increase of 70,000 in one borough in one year based on census returns, given that the census happens once a decade. Perhaps some clarification would be useful. According to the Census records I can find, the population increased by around 65,000 over a decade. It looks like someone's an order of magnitude out, here.
I live outside the city mentioned in my profile, and speaking to some people who live in the city, its like telling them, im from an imaginary land, that exists only when the Moon is in Gemini and Mars in Virgo.
I have absolutely no problem with you making this observation. We have a lot of weaknesses and we are aware of them trust me, we live the consequences.
I am certainly not here to advocate immigration in UK, I thought I made myself clear in my first post. I am conscious it can become a problem for any country not just UK. I replied just to emphasize the cheap shots and the inappropriate generalization, as you also pointed in an above paragraph.
@ allaorta:
To your first 2 questions, I rather not respond for the already said reasons. Regarding the Romas, they are a problem here also. The majorities do steal, scam, beg and we are ashamed with them, but they do not define Romania.
If you get the chance next time you’re here, try and talk with some elders about life under communism. the look in their eyes, their body language it’s ...something. I was only 7 years old in the autumn of ’89 and there is a day I will never forget. I remember being outside playing with two other children from my block; the street and sidewalks were covered by yellow and brown dry leaves, so silent; no cars, one or two adults passing by every few minutes. I was just a child and was repeating something I heard without knowing its meaning: “Down with Ceausescu!” I have no idea where he came from but, a man grabbed my hand and said “Don’t say that Again”. He wasn’t threatening me. The terror in his eyes! He was petrified hearing me saying that out loud and he was looking around to see who else heard me.
I assume from "the already said reasons" that you are conceding the Romanians have a high criminal population and I think that's something most on here were already aware of and one of the reasons they're apprehensive about further immigration, particularly when it is from countries with significant crime levels. We already have a situation where immigrants or immigrant descendants already form a disproportionate part of the crime figures. We already have a situation where onetime relatively low crime market towns, now have substantial social and crime problems as a result of immigration, or migration if you wish to call it that, much of which accompanies a substantial influx from Eastern Europe. Many of these towns had a 20/25% immigrant explosion over a period of two or three years.
Now for the Romas. Isn't it true that in Romania, the Romas are persecuted for the very reasons you state and do you think that despite the small part of your population they constitute, a significantly higher percentage of them will depart than the percentage of those you regard as defining Romania?
"I must point out ... that the British nation is unique in this respect. They are the only people who like to be told how bad things are, who like to be told the worst, and like to be told that they are very likely to get much worse in the future and must prepare themselves for further reverses."
-Speech in the House of Commons, June 10, 1941, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill