Thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians spotted at the borders

[soistes]

I could put up links that counter the one you posted, but I've avoided doing so because as yours is, they are seen as biased and partisan.

Could you explain how the UCL study (and I've read the full version) is biased and partisan? It doesn't seem so to me (and I've read the full report), and knowing some of the staff in the migration research centre at UCL, I'm 100% sure that if they'd found the opposite findings (i.e. greater dependence on benefits among migrants than among natives, and/or that the net economic and fiscal impact of recent migration was negative) they would have reported it transparently. It's also worth mentioning that unlike the media articles which so many people are citing on here, the UCL research (in line with good scientific practice) cites all its data sources, so that others can replicate their empirical analysis if they wish to, and the research is also subject to independent peer review (again in line with establised scientific practice).

 

[Westdene Seagull]

So why stay in Brighton? Because of its vibrant culture. And here's where I think immigrants help. Immigrants have always improved or embellished on our music, art, literature and food. If the cost of that is a couple of them getting benefits they're not entitled to then there are plenty of white British at that game too.

The cost is more than a few pounds of benefits claimed illegally. Plenty of the entry level jobs have been taken by immigrants - try going to get a bar job, a waiting job or a job in one of the discount supermarkets ( all decent starter jobs when I was 16-18 years old ) and almost every single one is filled by an immigrant. There are not enough jobs available for school leavers - partly because of the economic state of the country and also because of the large influx of immigrants.

 

[BigGully]

Precisely this. It seems that many people on here do not understand the basic principles of representative democracy, which is a fundamentally British approach to democracy, and one that is worth keeping in my view. The only possible case, within such a system, for a referendum it seems to me is where major constitutional changes are being considered -- if someone were to suggest aboloshing the monarchy and replacing with an elected head of state, for example, that would pose a case for a referendum. Scottish independence is another example. Joining the the EU (or EC as it was then) in the first place was arguably on a par with this, and indeed we did get a referendum on it in 1975.
Leaving the EU should also not be undertaken without asking the population first (not least, because it's such a daft suggestion).
I fail to see how fiddling around with immigration regulations amounts to fundamental constitutional change and requires a referendum.
I would suggest that people who think this way consider moving to Switzerland, where they do have referenda on such matters (.... if they could get past the immigration controls in that country of course....)

But thats just a comment on our constitution, this debate is not about that, its about our views on immigration irrespective of any likely implementation of those views.

 

[Simster]

Short-term, I want to see more time spent on integration. Long-term I want to see more spent on improving education and training opportunities for young people in this country so we can build a world-class workforce.

So, to clarify, the problem in question can be described (in your words) as "the concerns people have with the changes that are being brought by this new society we live in". These concerns appear to me to be the marginalising of less skilled British workforce, the overloading of public services, and arguably (not one I agree with) an erosion of our own culture.

And your short term answer to this problem is "I want more time spent on integration"?

I'm sure such clear objective thinking will come as a massive sigh of relief to those already on benefits who want a job of any sort.

As for your long term solution, can you find me ONE person who doesn't want more spent on education and training opportunities to build a world class workforce? Apart from the fact that we actually already have one, your "solution" is pure FLANNEL that wouldn't even sound clever in a VI Form common room.

 

[soistes]

But thats just a comment on our constitution, this debate is not about that, its about our views on immigration irrespective of any likely implementation of those views.

I'm well aware of that, thanks. Some of the comments on here have, however, been bemoaning the fact that we are not, apparently consulted about changes to migration regulations.
I was responding to those comments, and not the whole debate in general (I have also made some comments about other aspects of the debate in other posts, as it happens). I'm sorry if you feel that such a point is inappropriate to make, but I disagree.

 

[EDS]

The cost is more than a few pounds of benefits claimed illegally. Plenty of the entry level jobs have been taken by immigrants - try going to get a bar job, a waiting job or a job in one of the discount supermarkets ( all decent starter jobs when I was 16-18 years old ) and almost every single one is filled by an immigrant. There are not enough jobs available for school leavers - partly because of the economic state of the country and also because of the large influx of immigrants.

Not to mention the drain on education and health.

These are not like the Afro Caribbean's of the sixties, who wanted to come here and integrate. They come here to earn money, use our health service and use our education system. All the while sticking to their own little communities.

 

[cunning fergus]

I have sympathy for your argument, but the British electorate are not asked to approve pretty much anything. We don't want plebiscite/referendums on EVERY major decisions - we elect our MPs to delegate that responsibility and call them to account for the decisions they make.

I'd be interested to know why you feel we need more robust controls on our borders when there are already 26 EU/EFTA countries who seem happy enough to belong to the Schengen area.

OK, so let’s start at the beginning.

Have you ever voted for a position whereby “people” entirely unelected by the British electorate can impose laws in this country……………..if you cannot remember when this particular position arose, I can tell you, it was in the Lisbon Treaty. This ratified the implementation of EU Regulations. They were meant to be ratified in a previous treaty (the constitution of Europe treaty) but this was rejected following other referenda held in other EU countries.

http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/introduction/what_regulation_en.htm

As you will note EU regulations can be passed by the EU Commission alone and bypass the democratically elected legislatures in all EU member states. They are created regularly, and one example in the papers currently is the consequences of the Capital Requirements Regulation which will impose restrictions on EU Financial Services businesses. Whether you agree that Banks etc. should hacve controls on them this is a question of sovereignty first is it not?

We were meant to get a say in this important shift in sovereign power, as you will note on pages 83/84 of the attached.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_04_05_labour_manifesto.pdf

This treaty was what ex EU Commissioner Mandelson regularly referred to as a “tidying up exercise”.

So whilst I agree with you that we don’t need referenda all the time, shifts of sovereign power like what arose from the Lisbon Treaty should have been put to the British people.

As for borders, we are reaping what unelected politicans have sown, 14% of our prison population is foreign national, and based on Met Police stats they are arresting approx. 269 foreign nationals a day................and have been for the last 5 years.

**** Schengen, I want sensible border controls.

 

[BigGully]

I'm well aware of that, thanks. Some of the comments on here have, however, been bemoaning the fact that we are not, apparently consulted about changes to migration regulations.
I was responding to those comments, and not the whole debate in general (I have also made some comments about other aspects of the debate in other posts, as it happens). I'm sorry if you feel that such a point is inappropriate to make, but I disagree.

No need to be so precious, I wasn't trying to be horrible to you.

 

[soistes]

The cost is more than a few pounds of benefits claimed illegally. Plenty of the entry level jobs have been taken by immigrants - try going to get a bar job, a waiting job or a job in one of the discount supermarkets ( all decent starter jobs when I was 16-18 years old ) and almost every single one is filled by an immigrant. There are not enough jobs available for school leavers - partly because of the economic state of the country and also because of the large influx of immigrants.

I know that a lot of people think that there has been this massive impact of migration on youth unemployment, but apart from anecdotal material, its hard to find any hard evidence for it. As far as I'm aware, not one credible economic analysis suggests migration from the EU has had a negative impact on the employment or unemployment rates of native Britons (I may be wrong, but if there are any such studies, I'd be interested if someone could post a link to them). Indeed, if I recall correctly, there's good evidence from data at local authority level (I'll try to find the reference if anyone's interested) that youth unemployment actually rose faster during the recession in areas that experienced lower immigration rates.

 

[Simster]

Not to mention the drain on education and health.

These are not like the Afro Caribbean's of the sixties, who wanted to come here and integrate. They come here to earn money, use our health service and use our education system. All the while sticking to their own little communities.

You're drifting in xenophobic little Englander territory with this sort of nonsense. They come here to earn money, yes. But anyone who does that is entitled to use our public services, providing they pay tax. And minority groups in every country in the world have "their own little communities", and that included the Afro Caribbeans in the 60s. Look at Brits in Spain FFS.

The issue is not whether or not immigration is bad, it's the cost of cheap, unskilled labour to indigenous less skilled Brits who have been criminally neglected.

 

[Guinness Boy]

The cost is more than a few pounds of benefits claimed illegally. Plenty of the entry level jobs have been taken by immigrants - try going to get a bar job, a waiting job or a job in one of the discount supermarkets ( all decent starter jobs when I was 16-18 years old ) and almost every single one is filled by an immigrant. There are not enough jobs available for school leavers - partly because of the economic state of the country and also because of the large influx of immigrants.

I kind of already gave up arguing this with bushy on the basis that we'd never agree but to sum up:

1) You have no idea if these jobs would still be available if you reduced immigration because you have no idea how competitive our economy would be without it

2) There is a minimum wage plus tax credits This should be the level starting point. If it was I'd always take someone who spoke English as a first rather than foreign language. If minimum wage isn't being paid that's the fault of the employer or their customer, not the immigrant.

3) Leading from 2) this is fairly much the result of a free market. So what's your solution? Capatialism? Socialism? National Socialism? Or controls on the market that stop smelly people getting jobs but not bankers sending the global economy in to crisis?

 

[BigGully]

You're drifting in xenophobic little Englander territory with this sort of nonsense. They come here to earn money, yes. But anyone who does that is entitled to use our public services, providing they pay tax. And minority groups in every country in the world have "their own little communities", and that included the Afro Caribbeans in the 60s. Look at Brits in Spain FFS.

The issue is not whether or not immigration is bad, it's the cost of cheap, unskilled labour to indigenous less skilled Brits who have been criminally neglected.

Perhaps, but it shouldn't follow that you come here and pay a few quid in tax and that entitles you to take out £1000's in services.

 

[jgmcdee]

Have you ever voted for a position whereby “people” entirely unelected by the British electorate can impose laws in this country

Here we go again.

Have you ever voted for a position whereby "people" entirely unelected by the English electorate can impose laws in England?
Have you ever voted for a position whereby "people" entirely unelected by the Sussex electorate can impose laws in Sussex?
Have you ever voted for a position whereby "people" entirely unelected by the Brighton electorate can impose laws in Brighton?

EU regulations can be passed by the EU Commission alone and bypass the democratically elected legislatures in all EU member states.

The EU commission is elected by the people whom we elected.

We don't get to elect the UK civil service or have any say in the government advisors or other policy makers.


I get the general representation argument, but the EU is just another layer on top of the multi-layered system that we have in place already. I can see an argument for keeping the current system (with or without tweaks) and I can see an argument for dismantling the entire thing and starting again from the ground up, but I can't see any argument for removing the top layer and leaving the rest intact.

 

[Simster]

Perhaps, but it shouldn't follow that you come here and pay a few quid in tax and that entitles you to take out £1000's in services.

Yes it should.

It's just that we should be able to do a better job of deciding who gets to come into the country in the first place.

 

[cunning fergus]

I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Is it something I have posted? But, of course there are challenges; as there with any new initiative. But, the affected governments and citizens broadly speaking do not have an issue with the principle. In mainland Europe the discussion was had decades ago, and was decided decades ago. Mainland Europe has now moved on. Top say there are major concerns with significant numbers of the EU population is IMHO wrong. Since 2007 when Schengen came in and having lived in mainland europe for almost 2 years and travelled all over the place I have not heard anyone mention it at all; it is just accepted.

To be fair continental Europeans are well used to the unrestricted movements of Germans......................

 

[EDS]

You're drifting in xenophobic little Englander territory with this sort of nonsense. They come here to earn money, yes. But anyone who does that is entitled to use our public services, providing they pay tax. And minority groups in every country in the world have "their own little communities", and that included the Afro Caribbeans in the 60s. Look at Brits in Spain FFS.

The issue is not whether or not immigration is bad, it's the cost of cheap, unskilled labour to indigenous less skilled Brits who have been criminally neglected.

No I am not, I am going by what I know from living where I do. Not to mention I could not give a monkey's toss about Brits in Spain, if Spain allow it then that is down to them. The issue is what the issues are to everybody, not what you decide the issues should be.

From my point of view immigration at this moment in time is wrong, plain and simple.

 

[BigGully]

Yes it should.

It's just that we should be able to do a better job of deciding who gets to come into the country in the first place.

Why would a low skilled low paid job here in England offer an entitlement to unrestricted services, similarly a skilled one come to that.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I kind of already gave up arguing this with bushy on the basis that we'd never agree but to sum up:

1) You have no idea if these jobs would still be available if you reduced immigration because you have no idea how competitive our economy would be without it

2) There is a minimum wage plus tax credits This should be the level starting point. If it was I'd always take someone who spoke English as a first rather than foreign language. If minimum wage isn't being paid that's the fault of the employer or their customer, not the immigrant.

3) Leading from 2) this is fairly much the result of a free market. So what's your solution? Capatialism? Socialism? National Socialism? Or controls on the market that stop smelly people getting jobs but not bankers sending the global economy in to crisis?

The point being that there are only so many entry level jobs to go round. The city being a tourist place is lucky in that it has more of these jobs than non-tourist places. There is still a limit on how many of these jobs there are - when I left school there were still not enough to cover the school leavers / students that wanted these jobs - add in immigration and you have even more competition of the few that there are. I'm not for one minute suggesting employers are paying below minimum wage and thus undercutting British youngsters. I'm suggesting that the amount of vacancies hasn't grown but the number of people wanting them has - partly thanks to immigration.

 

[cunning fergus]

Here we go again.

Have you ever voted for a position whereby "people" entirely unelected by the English electorate can impose laws in England?
Have you ever voted for a position whereby "people" entirely unelected by the Sussex electorate can impose laws in Sussex?
Have you ever voted for a position whereby "people" entirely unelected by the Brighton electorate can impose laws in Brighton?



The EU commission is elected by the people whom we elected.

We don't get to elect the UK civil service or have any say in the government advisors or other policy makers.


I get the general representation argument, but the EU is just another layer on top of the multi-layered system that we have in place already. I can see an argument for keeping the current system (with or without tweaks) and I can see an argument for dismantling the entire thing and starting again from the ground up, but I can't see any argument for removing the top layer and leaving the rest intact.

The UK has a long established local and national governance framework that's been in place since before countries like Germany and Italy were even created, and sure it can shift around; isnt that why the Scottish are getting a referendum on independence? That's democracy right?

From an EU perspective there has been a long standing and material shift in national sovereignty; we last had a vote in 1975. Before the Lisbon Treaty EU laws could not be imposed on the British people without going through our democratically elected Parliament.............and isnt that what it should be.

The incumbent national Govt at that time promised a referendum................they were voted in by the electorate on that manifesto and then swerved the referendum.

And as for having people at the top voted in by other politicans...................that form of Govt sounds like a politburo to me.

What other form of democratic Govt operates that way?

 

[Guinness Boy]

The point being that there are only so many entry level jobs to go round. The city being a tourist place is lucky in that it has more of these jobs than non-tourist places. There is still a limit on how many of these jobs there are - when I left school there were still not enough to cover the school leavers / students that wanted these jobs - add in immigration and you have even more competition of the few that there are. I'm not for one minute suggesting employers are paying below minimum wage and thus undercutting British youngsters. I'm suggesting that the amount of vacancies hasn't grown but the number of people wanting them has - partly thanks to immigration.

Fair enough. There have been suggestions on this thread that the jobs are going to immigrants because they'll take 30p an hour and live six to a room. Which would be illegal.

So let's assume for a moment that everything is equal. What would stop an employer (and I interview and employ people) giving the job to someone he knows will live here permanently and speak the language properly? I would only not give it to the English person if they were a) of slovenly appearance b) so badly educated their English was worse than the Pole / Latvian / Romanian c) unable to show up regularly d) so entitled that they wouldn't get out of bed for minimum wage or e) the job involved liasing with people in other European countries (not likely for entry level but why we have 3 Romanians working for us - because they are good linguists)