Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 7:38:18 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 7:39:06 GMT
I'm not the one harping on about anything!! People keep saying that Remain are now lying and scaremongering (they are) and I'm simply pointing out what you have. BOTH SIDES are lying bastards! A General Election is held every 4-5 years with local elections inbetween, so we can show our displeasure and elect a different set of liars. There is no going back if we voted under the wrong assumptions (for either side). This is different, it is more like a slick salesman selling us PPI, except there is no Ombudsman to give us any compensation. Even Michael Gove has distanced himself now. A nuance lost on many Stuart |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 7:40:13 GMT
Yes, the immigration numbers are understated as nobody knows the amount of illegal immigrants coming in. Is that difficult to understand? What do you mean by 'benefits' Oldie? You seem to be trying to simplify it by referring to 'benefits' as just unemployment benefit. Are you aware of the long list of 'benefits' that are available? Yes I do understand Nobby. But your assertion cannot be mathematically correct. If we have had "mass" immigration and the number of people employed in the UK is at its highest level since records began, then there is no logic to claim that immigrants came here to claim benefits. However if you are talking about benefits that can be claimed whilst in work, then yes immigrants here legally and paying tax and NI would be eligible. That such benefits are necessary is due to the income distribution problem we have in the UK which I referred to in my post (which you misquoted). That need has nothing to do with the impact of immigration God, this is hard work. "then there is no logic to claim that immigrants came here to claim benefits." - You seem to assume that I have stated that ALL immigrants are coming to claim benefits. This is just nonsense Oldie, as you well know. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 7:46:33 GMT
"There continues to be a dramatic drop in those joining the register from the EU. Over the same period 805 EU nurses and midwives joined the register compared with 6,382 the year before – a drop of 87 percent. Following a period of sustained decline the number of UK trained nurses and midwives registered to work appears to be stabilising. Those joining the register for the first time is at its highest level for four years while 4,034 fewer people left the register. The number of nurses and midwives joining the register from outside the EU has also risen for the fourth consecutive year with 1,093 more nurses and midwives on the register compared March 2017." So, fewer staff have joined from the EU, but UK trained numbers has risen, so has numbers joining from outside the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 2, 2018 7:52:24 GMT
"There continues to be a dramatic drop in those joining the register from the EU. Over the same period 805 EU nurses and midwives joined the register compared with 6,382 the year before – a drop of 87 percent. Following a period of sustained decline the number of UK trained nurses and midwives registered to work appears to be stabilising. Those joining the register for the first time is at its highest level for four years while 4,034 fewer people left the register. The number of nurses and midwives joining the register from outside the EU has also risen for the fourth consecutive year with 1,093 more nurses and midwives on the register compared March 2017." So, fewer staff have joined from the EU, but UK trained numbers has risen, so has numbers joining from outside the EU. I hope they are not scumbags!!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 8:05:59 GMT
Yes I do understand Nobby. But your assertion cannot be mathematically correct. If we have had "mass" immigration and the number of people employed in the UK is at its highest level since records began, then there is no logic to claim that immigrants came here to claim benefits. However if you are talking about benefits that can be claimed whilst in work, then yes immigrants here legally and paying tax and NI would be eligible. That such benefits are necessary is due to the income distribution problem we have in the UK which I referred to in my post (which you misquoted). That need has nothing to do with the impact of immigration God, this is hard work. "then there is no logic to claim that immigrants came here to claim benefits." - You seem to assume that I have stated that ALL immigrants are coming to claim benefits. This is just nonsense Oldie, as you well know. Good we progress. So when discussing immigration from the EU or elsewhere, the numbers who come here just to claim benefits is so minute as to be not worthy of making note of? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 8:09:56 GMT
"There continues to be a dramatic drop in those joining the register from the EU. Over the same period 805 EU nurses and midwives joined the register compared with 6,382 the year before – a drop of 87 percent. Following a period of sustained decline the number of UK trained nurses and midwives registered to work appears to be stabilising. Those joining the register for the first time is at its highest level for four years while 4,034 fewer people left the register. The number of nurses and midwives joining the register from outside the EU has also risen for the fourth consecutive year with 1,093 more nurses and midwives on the register compared March 2017." So, fewer staff have joined from the EU, but UK trained numbers has risen, so has numbers joining from outside the EU. I hope they are not scumbags!! I guess that depends which country they come from, according to some. Also, as immigration was a key issue in the referendum, how can swapping skilled immigrants from within the EU with skilled immigrants from other areas of the world be a good thing and how does that solve the problems that the Leave campaign focussed on? |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 2, 2018 8:11:23 GMT
So, change of gears here.
Instead of being like those politicians we all agree are liars and who couldn't organize 2 cakes on a plate, why don't we do something different.
We've all been a little childish/butthurt/ignorant.
Let's have a look at what we agree on
The vote is what the vote is. We can't go back. Agreed?
We need to negotiate a trade deal with the US, China and the remaining EU states that will be in our interests.
Agreed?
We need to have better control over immigration so that we consistently vet non UK people based on skills shortages.
Agreed?
The EDL and Momentum are extremist groups that should be shot.
Agreed?
The sad thing is, in these days of divide and conquer politics, we have all fallen into the same trap.
Surely we are better than that on here arent we?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 8:15:20 GMT
God, this is hard work. "then there is no logic to claim that immigrants came here to claim benefits." - You seem to assume that I have stated that ALL immigrants are coming to claim benefits. This is just nonsense Oldie, as you well know. Good we progress. So when discussing immigration from the EU or elsewhere, the numbers who come here just to claim benefits is so minute as to be not worthy of making note of? Nope, you're still getting hung up on generalizations aren't you! When we are outside the EU, we can make our own rules. For example, we could say anyone coming into the country has to work in full-time employment for a minimum of one year before they can claim any benefits....whether from inside or outside the EU. Please note that this is an example, and this is an Internet forum where sometimes it is not easy to get the full meaning of what you are trying to say across. It's the ability to set our own rules/laws rather than those imposed upon us by the EU. It's the difference between being a Sovereign State and being a region in the United States of Europe. That was one of the things people voted Leave for, not this nit-picky stuff about 'some' immigrants. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 8:20:33 GMT
I hope they are not scumbags!! I guess that depends which country they come from, according to some. Also, as immigration was a key issue in the referendum, how can swapping skilled immigrants from within the EU with skilled immigrants from other areas of the world be a good thing and how does that solve the problems that the Leave campaign focussed on? No, you are missing the point again. People don't care if a skilled migrant comes from within the EU, or outside the EU. I don't think anyone has a problem with a skilled migrant coming to the UK to work, and they don't care where they come from. Current rules dictate that those from within the EU get preferential treatment. In fact, a convicted Romanian rapist has more rights to enter the UK than a Doctor from New Zealand. That's not right. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 9:58:22 GMT
Good we progress. So when discussing immigration from the EU or elsewhere, the numbers who come here just to claim benefits is so minute as to be not worthy of making note of? Nope, you're still getting hung up on generalizations aren't you! When we are outside the EU, we can make our own rules. For example, we could say anyone coming into the country has to work in full-time employment for a minimum of one year before they can claim any benefits....whether from inside or outside the EU. Please note that this is an example, and this is an Internet forum where sometimes it is not easy to get the full meaning of what you are trying to say across. It's the ability to set our own rules/laws rather than those imposed upon us by the EU. It's the difference between being a Sovereign State and being a region in the United States of Europe. That was one of the things people voted Leave for, not this nit-picky stuff about 'some' immigrants. Wow. I agree with your sentiment then. You are right. Perhaps the difference in opinion on this, if indeed there is one in reality, is I tend to think the market dictates immigration need, not legislation. I believe with some conviction that young people (talking EU here) don't come here to lounge around. They come for the job opportunities. Unless we screw our economy, here we probably do differ as I fear a nasty divorce from the EU will do just that, then those jobs will continue to be created. But as I said, mostly in the South, and South East at that. That area voted remain. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 10:01:55 GMT
So, change of gears here. Instead of being like those politicians we all agree are liars and who couldn't organize 2 cakes on a plate, why don't we do something different. We've all been a little childish/butthurt/ignorant. Let's have a look at what we agree on The vote is what the vote is. We can't go back. Agreed? We need to negotiate a trade deal with the US, China and the remaining EU states that will be in our interests. Agreed? We need to have better control over immigration so that we consistently vet non UK people based on skills shortages. Agreed? The EDL and Momentum are extremist groups that should be shot. Agreed? The sad thing is, in these days of divide and conquer politics, we have all fallen into the same trap. Surely we are better than that on here arent we? I agree totally with your sentiment. But not on immigration. The markets decide what skills are needed, not political parties. That's a recipe for disaster. But generally I agree, let's tone it down |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 2, 2018 10:14:34 GMT
Yes, that's a fair point with market deciding skills, but to be fair I just submitted that it probably does need some level of control.
Rather than tone it down, I'm more interested in discussing common ground rather than what we all differ on.
I think that would be more productive to gain consensus on how we should proceed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 10:39:18 GMT
Yes, that's a fair point with market deciding skills, but to be fair I just submitted that it probably does need some level of control. Rather than tone it down, I'm more interested in discussing common ground rather than what we all differ on. I think that would be more productive to gain consensus on how we should proceed. Ok Good. As a starter for ten, I do think that because the question on the original Referendum Ballot Paper was far to simplistic, we have ended up with a completely divided nation, shouting at each other. If the government cannot secure a settlement with EU which is not so compromised and fudge that the situation becomes even more divided, I cannot see any option but to return to the electorate to attempt to gain a mandate. Something along the lines of A) This is the agreement we have secured with the EU. A fact sheet has been sent to all of you outlining the pros and cons, as detailed by an independent auditor. Do you wish us to proceed on this basis Yes or No B) If no please indicate how you would like us to proceed. Choose one of B.1) Walk away from the current Treaty and trade under WTO rules, with all that this implies B.2) cancel our withdrawal notice and remain in the EU per our current Treaty. I cannot see how else we are going to overcome this stark division |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Aug 2, 2018 10:47:42 GMT
Can I ask the Brexiteers that if they are honest, did they 100% know what they were voting FOR.
Not what they voted against or even why they voted.
I'm not certain, was it hard Brexit or all in?
Was that really what the referendum decided?
Or did you guys hope to get out in a much softer fashion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 10:49:38 GMT
Yes, that's a fair point with market deciding skills, but to be fair I just submitted that it probably does need some level of control. Rather than tone it down, I'm more interested in discussing common ground rather than what we all differ on. I think that would be more productive to gain consensus on how we should proceed. Ok Good. As a starter for ten, I do think that because the question on the original Referendum Ballot Paper was far to simplistic, we have ended up with a completely divided nation, shouting at each other. If the government cannot secure a settlement with EU which is not so compromised and fudge that the situation becomes even more divided, I cannot see any option but to return to the electorate to attempt to gain a mandate. Something along the lines of A) This is the agreement we have secured with the EU. A fact sheet has been sent to all of you outlining the pros and cons, as detailed by an independent auditor. Do you wish us to proceed on this basis Yes or No B) If no please indicate how you would like us to proceed. Choose one of B.1) Walk away from the current Treaty and trade under WTO rules, with all that this implies B.2) cancel our withdrawal notice and remain in the EU per our current Treaty. I cannot see how else we are going to overcome this stark division Where on earth will you be able to find an 'independent auditor'? I don't agree with your B.2 question. That decision has already been taken. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 10:52:49 GMT
Can I ask the Brexiteers that if they are honest, did they 100% know what they were voting FOR. Not what they voted against or even why they voted. I'm not certain, was it hard Brexit or all in? Was that really what the referendum decided? Or did you guys hope to get out in a much softer fashion? There were no such terms as 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit during the referendum debate. It was simple, in or out. What is now called a 'soft' Brexit is just a device to keep the UK attached to the EU in the hope that at some point in the future the UK will be able to re-join the EU. A 'soft' Brexit is neither in or out. The referendum question was very clear, in or out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 10:58:29 GMT
Ok Good. As a starter for ten, I do think that because the question on the original Referendum Ballot Paper was far to simplistic, we have ended up with a completely divided nation, shouting at each other. If the government cannot secure a settlement with EU which is not so compromised and fudge that the situation becomes even more divided, I cannot see any option but to return to the electorate to attempt to gain a mandate. Something along the lines of A) This is the agreement we have secured with the EU. A fact sheet has been sent to all of you outlining the pros and cons, as detailed by an independent auditor. Do you wish us to proceed on this basis Yes or No B) If no please indicate how you would like us to proceed. Choose one of B.1) Walk away from the current Treaty and trade under WTO rules, with all that this implies B.2) cancel our withdrawal notice and remain in the EU per our current Treaty. I cannot see how else we are going to overcome this stark division Where on earth will you be able to find an 'independent auditor'? I don't agree with your B.2 question. That decision has already been taken. Yes it was, but I don't think anyone envisaged the depth of division that has occurred, nor a Government paralysed by its own division. As an unapologetic remainer I do not fear the electorate's decision if this was put to them. We must get past this hideous situation. Auditors? Ernst & Young, or one if the big City legal firms. After all we are pretty good at that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 11:01:51 GMT
Can I ask the Brexiteers that if they are honest, did they 100% know what they were voting FOR. Not what they voted against or even why they voted. I'm not certain, was it hard Brexit or all in? Was that really what the referendum decided? Or did you guys hope to get out in a much softer fashion? There were no such terms as 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit during the referendum debate. It was simple, in or out. What is now called a 'soft' Brexit is just a device to keep the UK attached to the EU in the hope that at some point in the future the UK will be able to re-join the EU. A 'soft' Brexit is neither in or out. The referendum question was very clear, in or out. It was. And all the worse for it. Which has led us to where we are today. Hopelessly divided, with both sides agreeing we were lied to. This needs to be settled based upon an informed decision. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2018 11:03:53 GMT
There were no such terms as 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit during the referendum debate. It was simple, in or out. What is now called a 'soft' Brexit is just a device to keep the UK attached to the EU in the hope that at some point in the future the UK will be able to re-join the EU. A 'soft' Brexit is neither in or out. The referendum question was very clear, in or out. It was. And all the worse for it. Which has led us to where we are today. Hopelessly divided, with both sides agreeing we were lied to. This needs to be settled based upon an informed decision. But we get lied to at every General Election, and we don't have a re-vote for them do we ! |
|
