That's a fair assessment. But using the same analogy - complaining about immigration putting a strain on our infrastructure is like blaming a flood on rain rather than inadequate flood defenses. Immigration is going to happen and there is nothing you can realistically do about it if you want to be part of a modern, international economy. That's the reality - no advanced economy on earth has been able to effectively limit immigration, they will come whether you like it or not.
We should have started a massive programme of house/school/road/hospital building back in 2000 when this all started. We should have abandoned the green belt policy and put people ahead of fields.
Scary stuff. I am not sure why we should put people from the far corners of the globe before England's Green and pleasant land, especially since the green belt seems to have been a popular policy overall. I can recall the days driving from Portsmouth to Southampton where you actually travelled through countryside, very little of that left and a desire to drive from London to Birmingham through urban sprawl is surely the stuff of nightmares.
That's a fair assessment. But using the same analogy - complaining about immigration putting a strain on our infrastructure is like blaming a flood on rain rather than inadequate flood defenses. Immigration is going to happen and there is nothing you can realistically do about it if you want to be part of a modern, international economy. That's the reality - no advanced economy on earth has been able to effectively limit immigration, they will come whether you like it or not.
We should have started a massive programme of house/school/road/hospital building back in 2000 when this all started. We should have abandoned the green belt policy and put people ahead of fields.
I still don't see why, that just because someone comes here to sell coffee, for a company that may not pay much tax, that they automatically get to stay forever and become a citizen?
There are such things as contractors and temps in business, not every one is a permanent employee. So why should it be any different for countries?
UKIP policy of saying we wont stop people coming here to work if they are needed, but only 50,000 can stay per year based on their skills sort of makes sense.
NET migration could never be controlled I agree, but ILR can be easily. I'm not even sure automatic settlement is a treaty requirement, it may just be a negotiable directive.
On the point about the infrastructure, the migrants contribution would have to both pay for it and benefit the existing population financially. For that we would have to only let the highest skilled and highest paid live here permanently.
That means family migration needs to be based on the same requirements too.
Fewer than now and so what? There were still countries in economic difficulty when we joined eg Ireland, Italy etc ?
so what???:o
here's a clue. freedom of movement originally involving a handful of countries, compared to today with 27 countries (and about 8 more lined up wanting to join the EU).
I still don't see why, that just because someone comes here to sell coffee, for a company that may not pay much tax, that they automatically get to stay forever and become a citizen?
There are such things as contractors and temps in business, not every one is a permanent employee. So why should it be any different for countries?
UKIP policy of saying we wont stop people coming here to work if they are needed, but only 50,000 can stay per year based on their skills sort of makes sense.
NET migration could never be controlled I agree, but ILR can be easily. I'm not even sure automatic settlement is a treaty requirement, it may just be a negotiable directive.
On the point about the infrastructure, the migrants contribution would have to both pay for it and benefit the existing population financially. For that we would have to only let the highest skilled and highest paid live here permanently.
That means family migration needs to be based on the same requirements too.
So when should someone have a right to a perment home here 5 years 7 years 10 years or never
Thought I just heard Cleggie on radio saying Cameron was daft to promise something over which he had no control - reducing immigration. Is that because we have handed over control of our borders to the EU, Cleggie lad?
So when should someone have a right to a perment home here 5 years 7 years 10 years or never
It's not the duration, that is five years, it is the number allowed per year.
That 50,000 is both EU and non EU and would include any foreign student looking to stay here and work.
It would be based purely on points according to UKIP, so the low paid and unskilled would not stand a chance.
UKIP said they would still allow asylum, but did not say whether they would have the right to stay permanently.
They mentioned family migration had to be considered too. I suspect that the way forward will be to increase the earning level required, but allow the foreign spouses wealth to be counted. So you could be unemployed but if your foreign spouse is a banker on 150K, then they would be allowed to settle here.
Thought I just heard Cleggie on radio saying Cameron was daft to promise something over which he had no control - reducing immigration. Is that because we have handed over control of our borders to the EU, Cleggie lad?
Clegg and co. are trying to say that just because NET migration can't be controlled that immigration can not be controlled, which is wrong because it can be controlled.
I want to know why free movement means people can stay for good. If they do that they are not moving around are they? Wish someone would ask Clegg that question.
It's not the duration, that is five years, it is the number allowed per year.
That 50,000 is both EU and non EU and would include any foreign student looking to stay here and work.
It would be based purely on points according to UKIP, so the low paid and unskilled would not stand a chance.
UKIP said they would still allow asylum, but did not say whether they would have the right to stay permanently.
They mentioned family migration had to be considered too. I suspect that the way forward will be to increase the earning level required, but allow the foreign spouses wealth to be counted. So you could be unemployed but if your foreign spouse is a banker on 150K, then they would be allowed to settle here.
Do you know what i find strange, people talk about low paid unskilled, they are really the least of the problem we should be wondering why we cannot keep hold of highly skilled people in the uk.
It's not the duration, that is five years, it is the number allowed per year.
That 50,000 is both EU and non EU and would include any foreign student looking to stay here and work.
It would be based purely on points according to UKIP, so the low paid and unskilled would not stand a chance.
UKIP said they would still allow asylum, but did not say whether they would have the right to stay permanently.
They mentioned family migration had to be considered too. I suspect that the way forward will be to increase the earning level required, but allow the foreign spouses wealth to be counted. So you could be unemployed but if your foreign spouse is a banker on 150K, then they would be allowed to settle here.
Foreign students wouldn't be part of the total net migration according to Ukip.
Good job Ukip has an idea how to keep riff-raff out - otherwise Mrs Farage would have to leave
Foreign students wouldn't be part of the total net migration according to Ukip.
Good job Ukip has an idea how to keep riff-raff out - otherwise Mrs Farage would have to leave
Yes correct, foreign students would not be counted as migrants by a UKIP government. If they wanted to stay on after studying and work they would have to apply like everyone else though.
Do you know what i find strange, people talk about low paid unskilled, they are really the least of the problem we should be wondering why we cannot keep hold of highly skilled people in the uk.
That's the idea. We are importing less skilled people than we are exporting, so UKIP propose a cap and a points system to decide who gets to stay.
Thought I just heard Cleggie on radio saying Cameron was daft to promise something over which he had no control - reducing immigration. Is that because we have handed over control of our borders to the EU, Cleggie lad?
I was most disappointed that Ferrari did not challenge that point this morning on LBC - he gets such a soft ride on there.
That's the idea. We are importing less skilled people than we are exporting, so UKIP propose a cap and a points system to decide who gets to stay.
The skilled people are not leaving the uk because we are importing less skilled people, if these people dont have the skills anyway they are not replacing the skilled people
The skilled people are not leaving the uk because we are importing less skilled people, if these people dont have the skills anyway they are not replacing the skilled people
They're leaving because it's turning into an low paid intransigent workers camp and a general sh*thole.
The skilled people are not leaving the uk because we are importing less skilled people, if these people dont have the skills anyway they are not replacing the skilled people
Very simple we have a brain drain and highly skilled people leaving the uk, which are not being replaced by low paid unskilled people, because either the people coming in have the skills to do the job or they dont..
Very simple we have a brain drain and highly skilled people leaving the uk, which are not being replaced by low paid unskilled people, because either the people coming in have the skills to do the job or they dont..
Hell, we have had a brain drain since the 60's. It is purely wage, working conditions and R&D budgets that drives it. I only have half a brain and was approached many times in the 70's and 80's to go to the US and Australia - I wish I had gone now
The skilled people are not leaving the uk because we are importing less skilled people, if these people dont have the skills anyway they are not replacing the skilled people
There is also a high skills brain drain into the UK. I work with a lot of hitech and biotech R&D companies and everywhere you visit is like the United Nations full of graduates and PhDs from France, Spain, Greece and elsewhere. If you are Spanish or Greek and have a degree in molecular biology or electrical engineering then the UK is the best place in Europe for a job as there aren't any at home. These aren't lows skilled people on low wages either, in fact they are often better qualified than their British peers.
These businesses (as well as Universities) want the best people they can get regardless of where they come from. In a free EU labour market is doesn't matter is someone is from Margate or Madrid.
The growing net immigration figure is just a consequence of an improving economy. More people want to move here and fewer want to leave.
David Cameron is nothing but a liar over immigration and Miliband is spot on when he says this man is rotten. Cameron is simply rotten to the core, as is the rest of his cabinet full of liars, failures and has-beens.
I'll vote for anyone who can rid us of this failed Conservative Party in May.
Comments
Scary stuff. I am not sure why we should put people from the far corners of the globe before England's Green and pleasant land, especially since the green belt seems to have been a popular policy overall. I can recall the days driving from Portsmouth to Southampton where you actually travelled through countryside, very little of that left and a desire to drive from London to Birmingham through urban sprawl is surely the stuff of nightmares.
I still don't see why, that just because someone comes here to sell coffee, for a company that may not pay much tax, that they automatically get to stay forever and become a citizen?
There are such things as contractors and temps in business, not every one is a permanent employee. So why should it be any different for countries?
UKIP policy of saying we wont stop people coming here to work if they are needed, but only 50,000 can stay per year based on their skills sort of makes sense.
NET migration could never be controlled I agree, but ILR can be easily. I'm not even sure automatic settlement is a treaty requirement, it may just be a negotiable directive.
On the point about the infrastructure, the migrants contribution would have to both pay for it and benefit the existing population financially. For that we would have to only let the highest skilled and highest paid live here permanently.
That means family migration needs to be based on the same requirements too.
so what???:o
here's a clue. freedom of movement originally involving a handful of countries, compared to today with 27 countries (and about 8 more lined up wanting to join the EU).
what could possibly go wrong.
So when should someone have a right to a perment home here 5 years 7 years 10 years or never
It's not the duration, that is five years, it is the number allowed per year.
That 50,000 is both EU and non EU and would include any foreign student looking to stay here and work.
It would be based purely on points according to UKIP, so the low paid and unskilled would not stand a chance.
UKIP said they would still allow asylum, but did not say whether they would have the right to stay permanently.
They mentioned family migration had to be considered too. I suspect that the way forward will be to increase the earning level required, but allow the foreign spouses wealth to be counted. So you could be unemployed but if your foreign spouse is a banker on 150K, then they would be allowed to settle here.
Clegg and co. are trying to say that just because NET migration can't be controlled that immigration can not be controlled, which is wrong because it can be controlled.
I want to know why free movement means people can stay for good. If they do that they are not moving around are they? Wish someone would ask Clegg that question.
Do you know what i find strange, people talk about low paid unskilled, they are really the least of the problem we should be wondering why we cannot keep hold of highly skilled people in the uk.
Good job Ukip has an idea how to keep riff-raff out - otherwise Mrs Farage would have to leave
Yes correct, foreign students would not be counted as migrants by a UKIP government. If they wanted to stay on after studying and work they would have to apply like everyone else though.
And Mrs Clegg, and their nanny, and their housekeeper.
Your point is?
That's the idea. We are importing less skilled people than we are exporting, so UKIP propose a cap and a points system to decide who gets to stay.
I was most disappointed that Ferrari did not challenge that point this morning on LBC - he gets such a soft ride on there.
The skilled people are not leaving the uk because we are importing less skilled people, if these people dont have the skills anyway they are not replacing the skilled people
They're leaving because it's turning into an low paid intransigent workers camp and a general sh*thole.
Translation please anyone?
Very simple we have a brain drain and highly skilled people leaving the uk, which are not being replaced by low paid unskilled people, because either the people coming in have the skills to do the job or they dont..
That is because the uk is becoming a low wage economy, how else can it compete in the globle market,
Hell, we have had a brain drain since the 60's. It is purely wage, working conditions and R&D budgets that drives it. I only have half a brain and was approached many times in the 70's and 80's to go to the US and Australia - I wish I had gone now
There is also a high skills brain drain into the UK. I work with a lot of hitech and biotech R&D companies and everywhere you visit is like the United Nations full of graduates and PhDs from France, Spain, Greece and elsewhere. If you are Spanish or Greek and have a degree in molecular biology or electrical engineering then the UK is the best place in Europe for a job as there aren't any at home. These aren't lows skilled people on low wages either, in fact they are often better qualified than their British peers.
These businesses (as well as Universities) want the best people they can get regardless of where they come from. In a free EU labour market is doesn't matter is someone is from Margate or Madrid.
The growing net immigration figure is just a consequence of an improving economy. More people want to move here and fewer want to leave.
I'll vote for anyone who can rid us of this failed Conservative Party in May.
We'll all in it together though... Unless you're a born millionaire Tory MP or one of their fellow millionaire banker friends.
Prime Minister promised voters to cut net migration: 'No ifs. No buts'
Humiliating figures today showed David Cameron's promise to cut net migration to the 'tens of thousands' is in tatters
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2970032/Humiliation-Cameron-net-migration-hits-298-000-despite-promise-cut-tens-thousands.html#ixzz3SsX1EIj6
What a joke Cameron is. Yet another broken promise.
No wonder he's so scared of facing Farage in the TV debates.
Does the points based system apply to family migration too? UKIP were a bit vague on that on the Daily Politics.