Europe: In or Out

[melias shoes]

I'll buy a CPFC season ticket if Turkey ever joins the EU. It will never happen.

You'll be at selhurst before you know it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

As someone that has claimed out of work benefits I'd suggest it was because my 20+ years work in IT didn't qualify me to work as a nurse. I assume you'd be happy for me to treat you ?

You could possibly tinker with the hospital software?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Damn lies and statistics?

No one, least of all me, is suggesting a free-for-all. The data in the article I linked showed that all migrant groups contribute positively to British coffers. I think it is probably by, say, French hedge fund managers who have fled French taxes but on the whole the overall balance on British exchequer appears to be positive.

The data may not be quite what it seems ...

The fiscal effect of immigration on the UK exchequer has gained considerable prominence in recent months. The results of all research in this area depend on the method used and on the assumptions underlying them.

This paper examines a “discussion paper” issued by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) at University College, London. The authors, Dustmann and Frattini, adopted the “average cost” method for their reported results but also calculated an alternative scenario using the “marginal cost” method preferred by some. This paper focuses on the reported results, but we also examine the alternative scenario in Annex A.

ii. The authors themselves found a fiscal cost to the UK from migrants in the UK of £95 billion between1995 and 2011. This result can be found only in Table 5 at the end of their paper; the figure is not mentioned in their text and the abstract of their paper makes no mention of any fiscal cost at all....

7. The analysis in this paper points to some clear conclusions.

a. On Dustmann and Frattini’s own findings, there was no positive fiscal impact from migration in any year.

b. Migration to the UK since 2000 did not have a positive fiscal impact either.

c. The claim that recent EEA migrants contributed 34% more in revenues than they received in state expenditures is simply wrong. It relies on assumptions that employees earn the same as the UK-born population when their own figures show they do not, that self-employed migrant contribute far more than those employed when they have no evidence of this whatsoever and – wholly unrealistically - that all of them own the same investments, property and other assets as the UK-born and long-term residents from the day they arrive in the UK.

d. Similarly the claim that recent EEA migrants are only half as likely to claim ’benefits or tax credits’ is highly misleading. In the context of establishing the fiscal cost what matters is the amount people receive, and different benefits pay different amounts to different people.

Recent EEA migrants are much more likely to receive tax credits than the UK-born population,and more likely to receive housing benefit, and these are likely to be paid at higher rates in view of their lower incomes

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/BP1_37.pdf

... reading through this paper certainly undermines if not completely demolishes the original reports conclusions.

Who to believe?

 

[looney]

You could be right. Here are a couple of French views

http://www.thelocal.fr/20160218/wary-french-could-scupper-camerons-brexit-deal

http://www.thelocal.fr/20160218/why-a-brexit-would-mean-a-windfall-for-france

Cant read the first link, no scroll bar.....weird.

 

[looney]

We became the FIRST INDUSTRIAL NATION, with EMMIGRATION.

 

[Soulman]

Don't forget in the future Turkey , Ukraine and various other countries want to join the EU , God knows what the mess will be like then

I can never understand how Turkey can be classed as a European country anyway.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Don't forget in the future Turkey , Ukraine and various other countries want to join the EU , God knows what the mess will be like then

I can see migration running at 600k - 700k a year if we Remain. This country is going to be one awful place to live.

 

[Soulman]

I feel your pain....I have to fund the ****ing English.

You really do not like the English do you. Shame because most of us are nice people, that is why so many want to migrate here.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I can never understand how Turkey can be classed as a European country anyway.

Your telling me, the EU just gets bigger and bigger, for what?

 

[Czechmate]

As someone that has claimed out of work benefits I'd suggest it was because my 20+ years work in IT didn't qualify me to work as a nurse. I assume you'd be happy for me to treat you ?

I think you know it is not aimed at people like you , it is more about people who are too lazy to work and have hardly worked in their lifetime . We have had loads of job opportunities in the warehouse here which have been advertised at reasonable wages , they came for the day and we never see them again , one said it was too noisy because someone was using an airline ? all sorts of excuses came out ! Some people just don't want to work .

 

[Soulman]

As someone that has claimed out of work benefits I'd suggest it was because my 20+ years work in IT didn't qualify me to work as a nurse. I assume you'd be happy for me to treat you ?

Slow start to the year and i have only done 2 weeks work since Xmas, i start a new job Monday. After 40 years of paying tax etc, with 2 weeks dole money in 1983, guess how much i got for my 5 weeks out......feck all. I even put on my best Foreign accent as well.

 

[cunning fergus]

What if you're a Polish nurse who applied for a job in the NHS that was advertised in Poland. You move for work and want to bring your child to the UK, but it will take some time. You are entitled to child benefit and it is being used for the benefit of the child, what difference does it make how this nurse chooses to use the benefit to which she is entitled?

The first sentence is proposterous whether true or not................wtf is the NHS doing advertising for nurses in Poland?

 

[cunning fergus]

No one, least of all me, is suggesting a free-for-all. The data in the article I linked showed that all migrant groups contribute positively to British coffers. I think it is probably by, say, French hedge fund managers who have fled French taxes but on the whole the overall balance on British exchequer appears to be positive.

That's fine...........so surely it would be even better to allow the premiership footballers, French hedge fund managers and other assorted wealthy types to come unhindered, and then bin off the millions of unskilled and/or low skilled foreign Herberts that are clearly a drain on the UK taxpayer.

I am sure this can be sorted out, maybe a kind of points based system that means we get those that we need or want, and reject those who we dont.

Glad you are on board.

 

[5ways]

The data may not be quite what it seems ...

The fiscal effect of immigration on the UK exchequer has gained considerable prominence in recent months. The results of all research in this area depend on the method used and on the assumptions underlying them.

This paper examines a “discussion paper” issued by the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) at University College, London. The authors, Dustmann and Frattini, adopted the “average cost” method for their reported results but also calculated an alternative scenario using the “marginal cost” method preferred by some. This paper focuses on the reported results, but we also examine the alternative scenario in Annex A.

ii. The authors themselves found a fiscal cost to the UK from migrants in the UK of £95 billion between1995 and 2011. This result can be found only in Table 5 at the end of their paper; the figure is not mentioned in their text and the abstract of their paper makes no mention of any fiscal cost at all....

7. The analysis in this paper points to some clear conclusions.

a. On Dustmann and Frattini’s own findings, there was no positive fiscal impact from migration in any year.

b. Migration to the UK since 2000 did not have a positive fiscal impact either.

c. The claim that recent EEA migrants contributed 34% more in revenues than they received in state expenditures is simply wrong. It relies on assumptions that employees earn the same as the UK-born population when their own figures show they do not, that self-employed migrant contribute far more than those employed when they have no evidence of this whatsoever and – wholly unrealistically - that all of them own the same investments, property and other assets as the UK-born and long-term residents from the day they arrive in the UK.

d. Similarly the claim that recent EEA migrants are only half as likely to claim ’benefits or tax credits’ is highly misleading. In the context of establishing the fiscal cost what matters is the amount people receive, and different benefits pay different amounts to different people.

Recent EEA migrants are much more likely to receive tax credits than the UK-born population,and more likely to receive housing benefit, and these are likely to be paid at higher rates in view of their lower incomes

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/BP1_37.pdf

... reading through this paper certainly undermines if not completely demolishes the original reports conclusions.

Who to believe?

They use a different methodology to reach a different conclusion it seems. Who authored this paper? I would argue that the academic standards at UCL are probably higher than at Migration Watch. I will trust independent academics over anti-EU pressure groups.

 

[5ways]

That's fine...........so surely it would be even better to allow the premiership footballers, French hedge fund managers and other assorted wealthy types to come unhindered, and then bin off the millions of unskilled and/or low skilled foreign Herberts that are clearly a drain on the UK taxpayer.

I am sure this can be sorted out, maybe a kind of points based system that means we get those that we need or want, and reject those who we dont.

Glad you are on board.

These low-skilled individuals also make a positive financial contribution and take a lot of jobs which British people won't - the cleaners, the nanny's the street cleaners. I have no problem with this.

 

[dangull]

If we did vote to leave, and it turned out to be a bad decision as some are predicting, could we not apply to rejoin again in maybe 10 years?

Scotland voted no to leaving the union, but a few years later a lot of them seem to want another referendum in the near future.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

These low-skilled individuals also make a positive financial contribution and take a lot of jobs which British people won't - the cleaners, the nanny's the street cleaners. I have no problem with this.

And equally many that British people do actually want as well.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

They use a different methodology to reach a different conclusion it seems. Who authored this paper? I would argue that the academic standards at UCL are probably higher than at Migration Watch. I will trust independent academics over anti-EU pressure groups.

They did more than use different methodology they pointed out clear inaccuracies and omissions. Migration Watch have often been proved right on previous occasions frequently highlighting inconvenient facts and contradicting misleading reports. Not to say they can't be wrong or have their own agenda but their findings are similar to previous authoritative reports.

A House of Lords report specifically looking in to The Economic Impact of Immigration taking evidence from numerous sources (including migration watch) had previously come to the conclusion that ..

“We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population”. (Abstract) Despite the claims of the immigration lobby there is no economic argument in favour of current levels of net migration.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

 

[5ways]

They did more than use different methodology they pointed out clear inaccuracies and omissions. Migration Watch have often been proved right on previous occasions frequently highlighting inconvenient facts and contradicting misleading reports. Not to say they can't be wrong or have their own agenda but their findings are similar to previous authoritative reports.

A House of Lords report specifically looking in to The Economic Impact of Immigration taking evidence from numerous sources (including migration watch) had previously come to the conclusion that ..

“We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population”. (Abstract) Despite the claims of the immigration lobby there is no economic argument in favour of current levels of net migration.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Will take a look. *opens it*...will take a look later...also isn't 2008 a little out of date now. This seems more current: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/fiscal-impact-immigration-uk

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Will take a look. *opens it*...will take a look later...also isn't 2008 a little out of date now.

Enjoy

Apparently mass immigration has been ongoing for quite some time. The report you are choosing to believe takes data from 2001 - 2011 does it not?