its better then getting 0 signatures and it only has to get to 100,000 before the end of the time to go before Parliament and it is well on course to do this. keep hating, it is still the fastest growing petition on the whole site
thats was in reference to all the people on here moaning about the petition even though it is doing very well. It is the fastest growing petition, now fourth highest, and is now over 67,000 signatures
How come some petitions only reached 10k and there is already a response?
its because they past 10,000 a long time ago and haven't got many more signatures the petition on Romania and Bulgaria only past 10,000 4 weeks ago i'm not sure how long the average response time is
If 250,000 have already arrived here in the last five years, and the estimate is that in the next five years that total will rise to 425,000 - obviously opening the gates will slow the process down, not accelerate it. And yet we're being led to believe that opening the gates is just a short step away from Armageddon.
This whole campaign, and particularly the DM's spitefully one-sided coverage, stinks to high heaven.
If 250,000 have already arrived here in the last five years, and the estimate is that in the next five years that total will rise to 425,000 - obviously opening the gates will slow the process down, not accelerate it. And yet we're being led to believe that opening the gates is just a short step away from Armageddon.
This whole campaign, and particularly the DM's spitefully one-sided coverage, stinks to high heaven.
how is opening the gates with no limits going to slow down immigration exactly that makes no sense, it going to increase massively
the government have not even released (and refused several times) their estimates because they are believed to be so high
Civil servants are understood to have drawn up official estimates of numbers - but ministers are unwilling to publish these as it is believed the projections only show that a relatively small total will arrive.
Ministers are said to fear a repeat of an immigration fiasco under the last Labour government when it was predicted that only 13,000 people would move to Britain from Poland and other countries in eastern Europe after 2004. In fact, more than one million came to Britain in one of the biggest immigrant waves in the country’s history.
Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, has indicated that estimates have been drawn up in Whitehall but added he was not “confident” in them, while Mark Harper, the immigration minister, has said it is “not helpful” to speculate on totals.
In other words, ministers think the projections are too optimistic and don't wish to be held to them and suffer a repeat of Labour's embarassment over EU8 migration.
how is opening the gates with no limits going to slow down immigration exactly that makes no sense, it going to increase massively
the government have not even released (and refused several times) their estimates because they are believed to be so high
From your own link.
Civil servants are understood to have drawn up official estimates of numbers - but ministers are unwilling to publish these as it is believed the projections only show that A RELATIVELY SMALL TOTAL WILL ARRIVE.
That does rather assume that most of those who want to be here aren't here already.
That's not what your Telegraph article says. In fact, it says the opposite:
In other words, ministers think the projections are too optimistic and don't wish to be held to them and suffer a repeat of Labour's embarassment over EU8 migration.
Actually the government have so far given visa for a few thousand to pick fruit next year they can work anywhere they like and all their families will come
Here are the links for the article showing the government has refused to publish the figures and like Labour they are estimates they are not expected to be fully accurate but a general ball park figures would be nice you know not 15,000 when over 600,000 came. The truth is the estimate is likely to be extremely high and they do not want to release it
just like the polish figures and we all know how that turned out, if they are so small why not release them. the truth is they don't want to be blamed when we are flooded
Actually the government have so far given visa for a few thousand to pick fruit next year they can work anywhere they like and all their families will come
Here are the links for the article showing the government has refused to publish the figures and like Labour they are estimates they are not expected to be fully accurate but a general ball park figures would be nice you know not 15,000 when over 600,000 came. The truth is the estimate is likely to be extremely high and they do not want to release it
just like the polish figures and we all know how that turned out, if they are so small why not release them. the truth is they don't want to be blamed when we are flooded
Ohforcryingoutloud. <undefined> give me strength. :headdesk:
The truth is that Government does not have faith in the Civil Services' figures - not because they think they are too high, but because they think they are too low. Your own Telegraph article to which you linked earlier makes that plain. Eric Pickles says exactly that in that article.
And that is the reason why they don't want to publish them - because they don't want a repeat of the situation Labour had in 2004-5 where the official projections were more than an order of magnitude out from the migrant numbers. They're not prepared to pin themselves to a Civil Service figure of say 10,000 if it turns out that the real number is 50,000 or whatever. If they don't believe the estimates, there's little point in them releasing them is there?
That does not, however, entail that we will be - or that ministers think we will be - "flooded". The situation is not readily comparable to that in 2004, as has been discussed plenty of times before on this forum.
Which is it? Are the estimates too low "just like the Polish figures" and is Pickles telling the truth (and therefore wise not to publish them), or are they too high and is Pickles lying about them, and if so why would he lie about them given that he has no intention of publishing them, and also given that a timely leak could expose that lie to the Government's acute embarassment at any time?
It cannot be both. You appear to be arguing from a logically incoherent position.
lets assume the figures is low say 50,000 a year which is very very low. where are the jobs, housing, school places coming from
I'm unsure on what basis you think an estimate of 50,000 a year is "very very low". That figure is the same as Migration Watch's estimate, which if one is being charitable might be within margin of error but is likelier to be erring on the side of caution.
It is up to central and local governments to plan capacity and manage resources appropriately. There is not some finite limit on available housing and school places (or if there is, we are nowhere near it), but it does require Governments to enact the appropriate measures to increase provision, if that is what is required, and where it is required.
Nor is there a finite, fixed number of jobs. Opportunities exist for the motivated, ambitious and capable (and as a million Brits have shown, if others can take advantage of freedom of movement to seek them, so can we). We still have staff shortages in several key areas - and in some areas where there isn't precisely a shortage, it is not necessarily easy to get people with the right skills.
And one will not tackle youth unemployment in any significant measure by slamming down the barriers. It's short-termist and unsustainable; if you're being outcompeted, and you start down the protectionist road, unless you tackle the root causes you have to keep throwing up more and more protectionist barriers to stave off the competition - and all the while forcing your domestic audience to accept a narrower range of goods at higher prices, with the result that those with the means decide to move to freer markets where they're not subsidising an uncompetitive labour force. Guaranteed brain drain. Eventually the dam would burst and people lulled into a false sense of security would have to accept a far sharper correction to their living standards - and then, you really would have blood on the streets.
The way to tackle unemployment is to get the economy moving again, and that's going to require several things, not least getting the financial sector patched up enough that it can start lending to start-ups and small businesses again. And getting the euro crisis resolved, one way or another. Right now, all stems from those.
In the Eighties, someone (I think it was Lord Tebbit) once exhorted the British public to get on their bikes and seek work. Perhaps the exhortation of the 2010s should be for people to consider getting on Le Shuttle and doing the same?
why are you using the word "flood" instead of the word "arrive" ? Is it designed to generate outrage rather than debate ?
The word "flood" comes from the Express article. Of course it's designed to generate outrage. The Express has embarked on a "Crusade" to get the UK out of the EU and can therefore be counted upon to sensationalise every EU-related story it can get its hands on, probably in a desperate attempt to reverse its inexorable decline into irrelevance as a media outlet. In other words, it is extremely partial and unreliable as a source. It wouldn't surprise me to read that Barroso was behind Diana's assassination and that van Rompuy kidnapped Madeleine McCann.
The word "flood" comes from the Express article. Of course it's designed to generate outrage.
And this is why I generally ignore the stories in papers like the Express and the Mail. There's little point in developing informed opinion from a source with an agenda.
And this is why I generally ignore the stories in papers like the Express and the Mail. There's little point in developing informed opinion from a source with an agenda.
At least the Mail occasionally contains some actual news and factual content. You just have to know how to read it to avoid the obvious mind-traps in it. The Express by contrast is useless. It contains nothing of worth whatsoever, from what I can tell.
At least the Mail occasionally contains some actual news and factual content. You just have to know how to read it to avoid the obvious mind-traps in it. The Express by contrast is useless. It contains nothing of worth whatsoever, from what I can tell.
you mean the mail the 2nd most popular paper in the country that sells more then all the left papers combined
or the express that sells more then the guardian and independent combined
perhaps you are out of touch with the majority of the nation
Comments
This is Cameron we're talking about: it's all hot air.
A left wing Mayor in Germany changes his position after Romanians and Bulgarians arrive
he complains of massive crime rates
massive cost in benefits and policing
Sign this petition to restrict Bulgarian and Romanians from entering the UK:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41492
Over 65,000 now
Odd to post a petition then call people haters.
thats was in reference to all the people on here moaning about the petition even though it is doing very well. It is the fastest growing petition, now fourth highest, and is now over 67,000 signatures
its because they past 10,000 a long time ago and haven't got many more signatures the petition on Romania and Bulgaria only past 10,000 4 weeks ago i'm not sure how long the average response time is
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287116/Romanians-Bulgarians-snap-175-000-jobs-UK--thats-borders-opened.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
‘We’re heading ever closer to my estimate of 425,000 Romanians and Bulgarians, which is a number I simply don’t believe this country can cope with.’
MP's launch inquiry because they are so worried about the numbers
If 250,000 have already arrived here in the last five years, and the estimate is that in the next five years that total will rise to 425,000 - obviously opening the gates will slow the process down, not accelerate it. And yet we're being led to believe that opening the gates is just a short step away from Armageddon.
This whole campaign, and particularly the DM's spitefully one-sided coverage, stinks to high heaven.
how is opening the gates with no limits going to slow down immigration exactly that makes no sense, it going to increase massively
the government have not even released (and refused several times) their estimates because they are believed to be so high
That does rather assume that most of those who want to be here aren't here already.
That's not what your Telegraph article says. In fact, it says the opposite:
In other words, ministers think the projections are too optimistic and don't wish to be held to them and suffer a repeat of Labour's embarassment over EU8 migration.
From your own link.
Actually the government have so far given visa for a few thousand to pick fruit next year they can work anywhere they like and all their families will come
Here are the links for the article showing the government has refused to publish the figures and like Labour they are estimates they are not expected to be fully accurate but a general ball park figures would be nice you know not 15,000 when over 600,000 came. The truth is the estimate is likely to be extremely high and they do not want to release it
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/02/exclusive-government-blocks-release-estimate-romanian-and-bulgarian-immigration
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9882540/Clegg-Government-has-made-estimates-of-number-of-Romanian-and-Bulgarian-immigrants.html
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/01/pickles-refuses-to-disclose-government-numbers-on-how-romanians-and-bulgarian-immigrants-will-come-to-the-uk-when-eu-transition-controls-end/
Clegg and Pickeles have admitted they have the figures and are not releasing the
just like the polish figures and we all know how that turned out, if they are so small why not release them. the truth is they don't want to be blamed when we are flooded
Ohforcryingoutloud. <undefined> give me strength. :headdesk:
The truth is that Government does not have faith in the Civil Services' figures - not because they think they are too high, but because they think they are too low. Your own Telegraph article to which you linked earlier makes that plain. Eric Pickles says exactly that in that article.
And that is the reason why they don't want to publish them - because they don't want a repeat of the situation Labour had in 2004-5 where the official projections were more than an order of magnitude out from the migrant numbers. They're not prepared to pin themselves to a Civil Service figure of say 10,000 if it turns out that the real number is 50,000 or whatever. If they don't believe the estimates, there's little point in them releasing them is there?
That does not, however, entail that we will be - or that ministers think we will be - "flooded". The situation is not readily comparable to that in 2004, as has been discussed plenty of times before on this forum.
Which is it? Are the estimates too low "just like the Polish figures" and is Pickles telling the truth (and therefore wise not to publish them), or are they too high and is Pickles lying about them, and if so why would he lie about them given that he has no intention of publishing them, and also given that a timely leak could expose that lie to the Government's acute embarassment at any time?
It cannot be both. You appear to be arguing from a logically incoherent position.
The UK credit card.
because that work so well its not like we have crippling debt already and public services close to breaking
I'm unsure on what basis you think an estimate of 50,000 a year is "very very low". That figure is the same as Migration Watch's estimate, which if one is being charitable might be within margin of error but is likelier to be erring on the side of caution.
It is up to central and local governments to plan capacity and manage resources appropriately. There is not some finite limit on available housing and school places (or if there is, we are nowhere near it), but it does require Governments to enact the appropriate measures to increase provision, if that is what is required, and where it is required.
Nor is there a finite, fixed number of jobs. Opportunities exist for the motivated, ambitious and capable (and as a million Brits have shown, if others can take advantage of freedom of movement to seek them, so can we). We still have staff shortages in several key areas - and in some areas where there isn't precisely a shortage, it is not necessarily easy to get people with the right skills.
And one will not tackle youth unemployment in any significant measure by slamming down the barriers. It's short-termist and unsustainable; if you're being outcompeted, and you start down the protectionist road, unless you tackle the root causes you have to keep throwing up more and more protectionist barriers to stave off the competition - and all the while forcing your domestic audience to accept a narrower range of goods at higher prices, with the result that those with the means decide to move to freer markets where they're not subsidising an uncompetitive labour force. Guaranteed brain drain. Eventually the dam would burst and people lulled into a false sense of security would have to accept a far sharper correction to their living standards - and then, you really would have blood on the streets.
The way to tackle unemployment is to get the economy moving again, and that's going to require several things, not least getting the financial sector patched up enough that it can start lending to start-ups and small businesses again. And getting the euro crisis resolved, one way or another. Right now, all stems from those.
In the Eighties, someone (I think it was Lord Tebbit) once exhorted the British public to get on their bikes and seek work. Perhaps the exhortation of the 2010s should be for people to consider getting on Le Shuttle and doing the same?
why are you using the word "flood" instead of the word "arrive" ? Is it designed to generate outrage rather than debate ?
The word "flood" comes from the Express article. Of course it's designed to generate outrage. The Express has embarked on a "Crusade" to get the UK out of the EU and can therefore be counted upon to sensationalise every EU-related story it can get its hands on, probably in a desperate attempt to reverse its inexorable decline into irrelevance as a media outlet. In other words, it is extremely partial and unreliable as a source. It wouldn't surprise me to read that Barroso was behind Diana's assassination and that van Rompuy kidnapped Madeleine McCann.
And this is why I generally ignore the stories in papers like the Express and the Mail. There's little point in developing informed opinion from a source with an agenda.
At least the Mail occasionally contains some actual news and factual content. You just have to know how to read it to avoid the obvious mind-traps in it. The Express by contrast is useless. It contains nothing of worth whatsoever, from what I can tell.
you mean the mail the 2nd most popular paper in the country that sells more then all the left papers combined
or the express that sells more then the guardian and independent combined
perhaps you are out of touch with the majority of the nation