Unfortunately we only get one decision though. Group think usually happens in a single organisation, like a government ministry. Everyone hears a certain point of view, and those who don't agree with it are slowly marginalised until everyone is blindly singing the same tune. If those at the top are saying one thing the only way to get access to that group is by agreeing with them. Moreover once you're inside the group no-one is willing to challenge the dominant narrative because that narrative is what holds this group in its elevated position, so it pays to keep spinning it. Finally individuals might have doubts but the prevailing narrative is so strong they feel unable to disrupt it. This is different: these are all independent and separate organisations coming to a similar conclusion. Group think might occur in any one of them but all of them?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
Unfortunately we only get one decision though. Group think usually happens in a single organisation, like a government ministry. Everyone hears a certain point of view, and those who don't agree with it are slowly marginalised until everyone is blindly singing the same tune. If those at the top are saying one thing the only way to get access to that group is by agreeing with them. Moreover once you're inside the group no-one is willing to challenge the dominant narrative because that narrative is what holds this group in its elevated position, so it pays to keep spinning it. Finally individuals might have doubts but the prevailing narrative is so strong they feel unable to disrupt it. This is different: these are all independent and separate organisations coming to a similar conclusion. Group think might occur in any one of them but all of them?
Brighton Mod
Its All Too Beautiful
When I speak with my client in Holland he tells me that they will continue to trade with us and he cannot see why that will change and is scornful of Euro politicians, he also cannot understand why the Euro Parliament is in Brussels. Why should we be frightened of tariffs, yes the EU impose them on African farmers to protect the inefficient farming practices across Europe and then give aid money to the very farmers they have stoped from trading, but I don't see any trade sanctions on China, India or the Us at the current time. The issues of tariffs is massively overblown and if we fear these so much that is no reason to be a member of the club.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
Now we are heading for recession if we Brexit FFS, how much more of this scaremongering bullshit are we going to have to put with. Osbourne stop treating people like idiots, and stop talking up doom and gloom. When you talk stuff up enough things happen.
Bladders
Twats everywhere
Surely Osborne is running out of disasters , he's churning them out daily at the moment.
He must be worried, he's put out so many the public are just shrugging their shoulders now .
He must be worried, he's put out so many the public are just shrugging their shoulders now .
Really? Or is this how the Brexit camp are trying to deliver their fantasy?
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Nice work if you can get it:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...l-be-paid-400000-by-the-EU-to-do-nothing.html
Sent straight from the boot of Lingard
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...l-be-paid-400000-by-the-EU-to-do-nothing.html
Sent straight from the boot of Lingard
And you avoid questions about your statements - care to answer them or do you not know the answer ?
At least 5ways and HT attempt to back up their own posts, you on the other hand just parrot pro-EU stuff and then avoid questions around backing it up.
A debate where you and to be fair virtually every other Remain advocate seem to ignore the real evidence of past and current experience of the costs associated with EU membership (one being uncontrolled EU immigration) but always believe highly subjective economic forecasts which are notoriously inaccurate. Returning to the substantive issue.
Mass immigration is a recognised term and accurately describes what has happened over the last 15 years. There is also evidence that it was a deliberate policy ( Blair's, Blunkett, Straw's speech writer – mass immigration didn’t just happen; the* deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’. . . He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’).
The above not including illegal immigration or the recent admission of even larger levels of immigration see NI numbers.. so 2016 still rising rapidly.
I won't bother providing links to reports showing the net fiscal impact of immigration (2001 – 2011) varies from negative costs varying from 0.3 Billion to 135 Billion as you have already decide there is a net benefit.
We just have to build a few more houses, schools, hospitals numerous other types of infrastructure services?
Not even clearing the huge backlog we would need to build around 240 houses every day for the next 20 years just to be able to cope with increased demand from future (ONS projected) migration.*
One years migration figures mean the UK needs to find school places equivalent to 27 new secondary schools or 100 new primary schools.*
The effect on the semi /unskilled job sector according to the Bank of England – every 10 percentage point rise in the proportion of immigrants is associated with a two per cent reduction in pay.
3 million plus EU citizens now living here increasing pressure on the NHS and we have no control on how many more can arrive in future years. How do we plan for the correct amount of healthcare or any other service if we can't prevent possible huge variations in rates of immigration?
This is the reality of our current situation with a wave of new relatively poor countries on the EU/UK funded path to joining the EU. The increasing pressures and problems associated with mass immigration will continue. Speaking of which according to a recent poll 16% of Turks are considering moving here when they join, approximately 12 million people. Some say this is unlikely to happen but the UK government fully supports Turkish membership and is spending Billions to help it become a reality. As are the EU.
Your comments on the Scottish referendum are interesting the Scots voted remain but support for self determination increased as did support for the Nationalist party. Another referendum will happen at some point. It will be interesting to see what happens to UKIP support and Tory Euro sceptic opinion if a similar result occurs in a few weeks time.
As we know continually ignoring the concerns of the public on immigration is a dangerous game see the rest of Europe. Even today I read Austria may be about to vote in a far right President mainly due to concerns about migration exacerbated by EU rules on open borders and paralysis over the migrant crisis. We could end up with a situation where the UK electorate votes in a far more Euro-sceptic government and the EU wishing we would have voted to leave. Fingers crossed.
*See BBC EU referendum Fact Check
Only just got around to reading this in full, so thanks for the reply and the insights.
I'm still going to contest the impact of migration on the Uk. It is not a negative impact, but a positive impact.
One study shows that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants who resided in the UK in any of these years have been generally less likely than UK natives to receive state benefits or tax credits and also less likely to live in social housing as natives in the same region. All groups of recently arrived immigrants are less likely than UK natives to live in social housing - quite right - except it appears for non-EU immigrants, who are equally likely. That's non-EU immigrants. Not EU immigrants.
Immigration improves innovation, trade and entrepreneurship. In most OECD countries, immigrants are more likely than natives to start new businesses. In the UK, immigrants are more likely to be self-employed. Recent immigrants tend to claim less in benefits than native-born British people, though there are variations relating to the type of benefit and the immigrant group. Recent immigrant households and groups contribute more in taxes than is spent on them. There are significant variations, though recent immigrants, particularly from the European Union, make a consistently positive contribution.
The net fiscal impact of immigrants who have come to the UK since 1999 has been positive. The net fiscal contributions of recent A10 EU immigrants amounted to almost £5 billion, those of the other recently arrived European immigrants to £15 billion, and those of recent non- European immigrants to a total of over £5 billion. Immigrants contribute more than they receive in benefits. Consider also the savings to the UK taxpayer from immigrants bringing their own educational qualifications whose costs are borne by other countries and these savings are even larger - it's estimated that the qualifications bought in have saved us £14billion over the last 15 years. European immigrants, particularly, both from the new EU countries and the rest of the EU, make the most substantial contributions out of all immigrants.
Not all immigrants are entitled to claim all benefits. There is no or limited evidence that immigration is driven by welfare generosity. The labour market is a greater factor. Most research into the impact of immigration upon wage rates or levels of employment suggests that there is little impact; if there is an impact to reduce wages, it is small and probably short-term.
About 25-30% of immigrants from outside Europe settle in the UK as a family member, though this proportion is falling. Over 80% of these are spouses, half of whom are sponsored by British citizens.
One in five health professionals are immigrants. Additionally, immigrants use health and GP services about as much as the native-born population. On arrival they are typically healthier than the native-born population.
Conversely, and a real challenge for us I grant you, about 10% of 15-years old secondary students enrolled in UK schools have both parents born abroad and of those, a little less than a half were themselves born abroad. But, this figure is slightly above the OECD average - it is not way above average.
About 18% of pupils enrolled in primary schools and 14% in secondary schools, do not speak English as first language when at home. This is something we must address. It is an opportunity, but we see it as a threat. In fact, education as a provider to the native population and as a product/service industry is incredibly valuable. There were about 435,000 international students in UK universities bringing over £10 billion to the UK economy.
There is no evidence that economically motivated immigration has any impact on rates of crime.
About 215 million people - 3 percent of the world population - live outside their country of birth. Official remittances from international migrants towards developing countries amount to over $400 billion, though the full amount is significantly larger. This is nearly three times the amount of official aid. The percentage of British residents born overseas is 13%. This compares to France and Germany (12%) and the US and Spain (14%) Ireland (16%), Canada (21%) Australia (28%) and Switzerland (29%). UK citizens living abroad represent 7.5% of the UK population.
These are the findings of independent researchers from the London School of Economics, the University College London and the Centre for Economic performance. Try this link for example... http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa015.pdf
Even Migration Watch have been forced to quote UCL research papers to back up claims they make. What they fail to do on Migration Watch is to quote the research in full.
I agree with you that there are incredible pressures on public services, but these are pressures we can address - should we wish to.
On the matter of the Bank of England, I'd need to look at the more. I'm not familiar with it, but I'd like to know the context. As the bank is consistently warning against leaving the EU, I would imagine they see this as the lesser of two evils.
With regards to the graph that you have shown. That curve is hardly surprising giving the changes to the world in which we live in. As borders have come down and global transport has become easier then this is what we will see. But I go back to the OECD analysis. We in the UK are not experiencing levels of immigration that are exceptionally higher or lower than other countries. At present we are seeing a spike forced by exceptional conditions in a number of Middle Eastern countries. That will change.
Perhaps this graph is better - it doesn't go all the way back to the ice age, but it helps. And I agree with you that there are massive challenges associated with immigration - but do we see them as challenges or opportunities?
Only just got around to reading this in full, so thanks for the reply and the insights.
I'm still going to contest the impact of migration on the Uk. It is not a negative impact, but a positive impact.
One study shows that between 1995 and 2011, immigrants who resided in the UK in any of these years have been generally less likely than UK natives to receive state benefits or tax credits and also less likely to live in social housing as natives in the same region. All groups of recently arrived immigrants are less likely than UK natives to live in social housing - quite right - except it appears for non-EU immigrants, who are equally likely. That's non-EU immigrants. Not EU immigrants.
Immigration improves innovation, trade and entrepreneurship. In most OECD countries, immigrants are more likely than natives to start new businesses. In the UK, immigrants are more likely to be self-employed. Recent immigrants tend to claim less in benefits than native-born British people, though there are variations relating to the type of benefit and the immigrant group. Recent immigrant households and groups contribute more in taxes than is spent on them. There are significant variations, though recent immigrants, particularly from the European Union, make a consistently positive contribution.
The net fiscal impact of immigrants who have come to the UK since 1999 has been positive. The net fiscal contributions of recent A10 EU immigrants amounted to almost £5 billion, those of the other recently arrived European immigrants to £15 billion, and those of recent non- European immigrants to a total of over £5 billion. Immigrants contribute more than they receive in benefits. Consider also the savings to the UK taxpayer from immigrants bringing their own educational qualifications whose costs are borne by other countries and these savings are even larger - it's estimated that the qualifications bought in have saved us £14billion over the last 15 years. European immigrants, particularly, both from the new EU countries and the rest of the EU, make the most substantial contributions out of all immigrants.
Not all immigrants are entitled to claim all benefits. There is no or limited evidence that immigration is driven by welfare generosity. The labour market is a greater factor. Most research into the impact of immigration upon wage rates or levels of employment suggests that there is little impact; if there is an impact to reduce wages, it is small and probably short-term.
About 25-30% of immigrants from outside Europe settle in the UK as a family member, though this proportion is falling. Over 80% of these are spouses, half of whom are sponsored by British citizens.
One in five health professionals are immigrants. Additionally, immigrants use health and GP services about as much as the native-born population. On arrival they are typically healthier than the native-born population.
Conversely, and a real challenge for us I grant you, about 10% of 15-years old secondary students enrolled in UK schools have both parents born abroad and of those, a little less than a half were themselves born abroad. But, this figure is slightly above the OECD average - it is not way above average.
About 18% of pupils enrolled in primary schools and 14% in secondary schools, do not speak English as first language when at home. This is something we must address. It is an opportunity, but we see it as a threat. In fact, education as a provider to the native population and as a product/service industry is incredibly valuable. There were about 435,000 international students in UK universities bringing over £10 billion to the UK economy.
There is no evidence that economically motivated immigration has any impact on rates of crime.
About 215 million people - 3 percent of the world population - live outside their country of birth. Official remittances from international migrants towards developing countries amount to over $400 billion, though the full amount is significantly larger. This is nearly three times the amount of official aid. The percentage of British residents born overseas is 13%. This compares to France and Germany (12%) and the US and Spain (14%) Ireland (16%), Canada (21%) Australia (28%) and Switzerland (29%). UK citizens living abroad represent 7.5% of the UK population.
These are the findings of independent researchers from the London School of Economics, the University College London and the Centre for Economic performance. Try this link for example... http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa015.pdf
Even Migration Watch have been forced to quote UCL research papers to back up claims they make. What they fail to do on Migration Watch is to quote the research in full.
I agree with you that there are incredible pressures on public services, but these are pressures we can address - should we wish to.
On the matter of the Bank of England, I'd need to look at the more. I'm not familiar with it, but I'd like to know the context. As the bank is consistently warning against leaving the EU, I would imagine they see this as the lesser of two evils.
With regards to the graph that you have shown. That curve is hardly surprising giving the changes to the world in which we live in. As borders have come down and global transport has become easier then this is what we will see. But I go back to the OECD analysis. We in the UK are not experiencing levels of immigration that are exceptionally higher or lower than other countries. At present we are seeing a spike forced by exceptional conditions in a number of Middle Eastern countries. That will change.
Perhaps this graph is better - it doesn't go all the way back to the ice age, but it helps. And I agree with you that there are massive challenges associated with immigration - but do we see them as challenges or opportunities?
But it's not just about the economic impact directly - either positive or negative depending who you believe.
We currently have net immigration of around 330k a year - that means we as a nation need to build a city the size of Brighton and Hove plus 15% EVERY year. That includes NHS services, shops and housing. Where exactly do you think we are going to build these new cities ? Our infrastructure is creaking already for those that are here so we sure as hell don't need any more migration.
Our infrastructure has been woefully under-invested in.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
These were Keynsian economists, who where shown up a few years later than this coming of worse in predictions against a set of dice!. If your underlying assumptions are wrong them all, or most of, your predictions will be wrong as well. Firstly do not under estimate the amount of group-think there are among the remainers mentioned. Secondly it just Consensus propaganda. This is a common tactic(usually on the left) to paint an opponent as being isolated or extreme or both, they are then labelled, rogues or maverics, or in other words charming people who you cant really trust.
I agree with you. Why don't we invest in our services. We need to. We are an ageing population at the moment, so who is going to to the work. In fact, our skills shortage is heightened further by the fact that a huge number of people born in the fifties and sixties are now looking to retire, leaving a massive number of jobs open to be filled. If we don't fill them, and we don't show ourselves to be competitive, then there's going to be a bit of a demographic crash.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
Thats just spin. The issue is capacity not the standard of infrastructure. Its been overwhelmed because of immigration and people not thinking their arguments through.
Indeed. So we agree that allowing unlimited immigration whist our infrastructure isn't up to it is a bad thing that should be stopped.
Last edited:
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
This argument has been debunked so many times i'm suprised its still brought up.
I could ask why are you trying to solve one problem with another? Low birth rates are a breeding problem, you reduce the National Insurancesystem to a pyramid type Ponzi scheme while using Palative care as an excuse to justify racial and cultural genocide.
This all the while we have close on 2 million unemployed!.
It has not been debunked at all. Just because you disagree with it does not mean it has been debunked.
One might argue that the lack of capacity relates to a capacity of skills rather than the capacity to build.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
I am not disagreeing with it, thats just ano you are wrong response that people like you serve up.
I am giving you reasons its been debunked, for starters its economical illiterate.
If an aging population kicks in you expect to see certain things. The collapse in unemployment as it gets sucked in and wage inflation. As care for elderly is generally low skilled this re-inforces the first point.
There is no evidence of this happening.
Secondly if it does happen there are a range of solutions other than immigration.
Raise retirement age(people are living longer healthier).
Lower working age, its low skilled work.
Return to the extended family.
Battery farm old folk
Some of these are happening, they can be increased.
I'm sorry, I don't want to appear to be dismissing you, but you haven't really explained anything there at all. You want us to all live with our parents and work until we are eighty?
Chief Wiggum
New member
- Apr 30, 2009
- 518
Battery farm old folk