Parliament is free to treat differing groups of immigrants as it sees fit.

Equally, we treat tourists differently - some tourists require visas, we waive that for others and for yet more they don't even need a passport, much less a visa.

After Brexit countries such as India & going to want free movement, or at least increased numbers for immigrants. We have already heard rumours that India want this. Others will follow. I dont expect Britain to get a good Brexit deal so other countries will see us as desperate for deals & therefore weak & some might drive a hard bargain (including increased immigration limits in this)

Sectors such as farming & health/social care will collapse without immigrant workers. They will demand that the government allows them to recruit from abroad, and promptly

I don't believe a major drop in immigration will occur post Brexit. This is smoke & mirrors stuff that the public have fallen for hook, line & sinker.

However, this is where it's imbalanced, as there are way more EU migrants coming to the UK, than there are British going to the EU, this hardly makes it reciprocal. To have it fair and reciprocal, then there should only be the number British going to the EU equalling the amount of EU migrants allowed in, so should such a quota not be in place?


Why should there be a difference between EU and non-EU, they should be under the same system. Do any country outside the EU, have an immigration system for non-EU and EU citizens? Everyone who's not a citizen in them countries, are just immigrants, they don't have EU immigrant and non-EU immigrant.

Tourists are a totally unrelated case, as they can't work in the UK, that goes for every tourist. However, EU tourists can now just stay and work if they want. Any other country outside the EU, all have to have a visa to work, tourists can't just suddenly stay and say I will work here and live here.

Remainers wonder why they lost, this is exactly one of the points, that lost them the referendum. The majority of people don't want 2 systems for immigration, they only want one, where it's all regulated and with a quota on numbers.

They certainly do. Several large trading blocs / free trade areas have freedom of movement with their neighbouring states and distinguish between immigration from there and immigrants from other countries.

You really think that low population is the key to prosperity? Well the Netherlands should be rolling in it then as their population is only a quarter of ours!

But you might bear in mind that with half the population, demand for goods and services will also halve. Stores, businesses and factories will shut down. Jobs will be lost. Property prices will plummet (as millions of people all sell up at the same time).

And if the exodus isn't spread evenly (among regions, ages and skills) then the consequences could be even more disastrous.

Anyway the majority of people here are British; how are you going to boot them out? Or will you be first to volunteer?

Who exactly? Kind of helps if you are debating, to name some.

A lot of nations don't even have freedom of movement internally today. I guess the US would be the biggest free movement area, with the EU next.

Full map of them here :

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...es_(World).png

Many of them have an internal market / single market type set up and freedom of movement for their member countries..............the EU is a long way from being unique in having freedom of movement, it's quite commonplace across the globe.

The Eurasian Economic Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council and CARICOM would be typical examples of single markets that would be nearly identical to the EU.

Because our government and parliament made democratic decisions that there would be. That's their democratic prerogative. They can divide immigrants up to multiple categories anyway that want. And it is perfectly logical to treat your fellow EU citizens differently to non-EU states since you share a common citizenship (an EU one) with the former but not the latter. Equally were there a common Commonwealth citizenship it would make sense to have differing rules for them also from the other non-EU non-Commonwealth citizens.


Yes - non-EU EEA ones do. And many others have regional/trade block based systems.


Tourists aren't a totally unrelated case - the point was that we divide tourists into categories and apply differing rules to them. We don't subject them to the same system and there is no reason why we must do so, just as there isn't for work related cases.


You are presuming that is what the majority want and there is no evidence for that. A chunk of Leave voters probably don't want any immigration ever under any circumstances. Given how water thin the Leave majority was, it is not credible to believe that a majority of them only want a single immigration system.

Jeremy Corbyn

You seem to be rather confused

However, if you look at Caricom, they have limitations on freedom of movement. You have to qualify for FOM.

http://www.immigration.gov.tt/Services/CSME.aspx

Nonsense! The UK could, and should, have tightened up its free-for-all benefits system a long time ago which would have lilmited immigration. Its failure to do so is entirely its own fault and not that of the EU. It is plainly stupid and ignorant to blame others for home-grown problems.

So which 'things' could happen? You should at least explain your theory. At first glance you seem to be suggesting that people stop having babies.

How many of those 350,000 are foreign students who will either return home in a few years, or contribute to our society if they stay?

Would the reaction here to the OP be the same if the postulated 335,000 population increase were due to birthrate?

Would we introduce a Chinese style "One child" policy, or talk Australia into reintroducing "Ten pound Poms"?

Surely migrants have to pass entry requirements both EU and non EU, plus have ties to their origin countries and therefore potentially could return?

Also adult migrants arrive at working age so begin paying tax and NI the moment they begin working in the UK.

In relation to immigration we should have a negative immigration rate, with more people leaving than coming here.

The birth rate I'd like to see go down voluntarily, but certain policies can be put in place, such as not funding 3 or more children.

Giving tax breaks to couples that don't have children.

So with the birth rate constantly going down who is around to provide for those already here?

I assume you've come to that conclusion after you were allowed to live your life and would now like to dictate to others how they plan their family.

With birth rate and migrants our population is increasing by 500,000 a year.
We are told huge numbers of migrants are doing all the low paid jobs Brits won't do.
I would be interested to know how many of the adult migrants who begin paying tax, also begin claiming I work benefits, child allowance etc. ie a net drain on the country's finances.
Anyone know?

Can I ask why that question is relevant?

It is not migrates or uk born citizens who came up with this stupid in works benefit system.

A job either needs doing, or it doesn't.

We don't know this.

Why don't you find out and tell us and then follow it up with some analysis and discusssion?

My main argument for having a cap on numbers coming in, is so we can actually plan for services, housing and the NHS, in advance instead of constantly being on catch up with those services because from one year to the next we don't know how many are coming in......how can people complain about our public services when next year there could be half a million come in, we don't know and we wouldn't know how much to increase services to cope with a figure that we could only guess, it really is ridiculous and shortsighted.

I think you are looking at this like we, the general population, are some form of resource that can be deployed wherever the need arises, that if the major employers decide to cut their costs or take advantage of some other countries incentives to move, then we, the population will willingly tear up our roots and move like sheeple to wherever we are being hearded next in the grand scheme of socio-economics.

For most of us, in the UK at least, are really quite happy with where we live, we like it here and don't much fancy moving around. We like going abroad and exploring new places and cultures but it is always nice to get back home eventually.

As for training, most empoyers don't offer it unless they can get a tax break for it as they can get trained resource from overseas instead, why do they have the trained resource overseas but no jobs? I have often wondered that...or perhaps training has little to do with it and really it is all about cheaper labour that has been forced to tear up their roots by desperation to move here and offer themselves cheaply in our eyes but at a premium in their own eyes.

If you want to find data on EU countries skills and training you can check here http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/obser...untry-profiles

Many of the ex socialist/communist countries had well established education both vocational and academic, but post democracy the economies suffered hence a decline in jobs. Many have improving economies. Successive UK governments have chosen the short term view of importing skills rather than do the difficult thing of training locally in a satisfactory manner

At work I had a discussion with the head of HR about apprenticeships at the company.
He basically explained they were paid to come to work by the colleges they were attending. I countered these were not apprenticeship but work experience. But apparently these are government sponsored apprenticeships. Industry for the most part isn't interested in the cost and effort required to train.

It's all short termism, very little planning beyond the next election, it's been thus for 20-30 years.