[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The thing about EU migrants is, we are a part of them. Millions of Brits are economic migrants that may have no choice but to return to Britain if we are no longer part of the EU and so yes, we make it more and more restrictive for the Spanish to live and work here and Spain makes it more and more restrictive for us to live and work there. The numbers returning will make up for the numbers leaving but that still won't leave that room you talk about for "genuine refugees/asylum seekers.

Let's analyse that figure of 'millions of Brits' Red, shall we:

Of an estimated 2 million 'Brits' who have emigrated abroad to EU countries:

1) Just 30,000 are taking advantage of EU rules and claiming benefits and living abroad in EU countries. THESE are opportunist 'Economic Migrants' who claimed Benefits in THIS country but just want a bit of Sun, Sea, and Sand, and a change of scenery poor souls. The vast majority of these live and claim in Spain and Greece.

2) A huge majority are 'Retired People' who have sold up here after a lifetime's working and paying tax and wish to spend what life they have remaining in the sun.

3) A smaller percentage are ageing Brits with 'Second Homes' in the sun, who have made the move after spending more and more time abroad as they grew older.

4) Another smaller percentage are highly skilled workers whose work in foreign countries has made it economically impossible NOT to live abroad.

So - as Conservative MP Mark Field, so aptly couched it - “These [figures] are not like for like: Lots of Brits abroad are successful people living in second homes in Spain or France. Most Brits living abroad are not aggressive beggars or sleeping rough on the streets.”

As for what may or may not happen to all these 'migrant Brits' should we exit the EU - no one can say with anything other than a huge degree of unqualified speculation.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The thing about EU migrants is, we are a part of them. Millions of Brits are economic migrants that may have no choice but to return to Britain if we are no longer part of the EU and so yes, we make it more and more restrictive for the Spanish to live and work here and Spain makes it more and more restrictive for us to live and work there. The numbers returning will make up for the numbers leaving but that still won't leave that room you talk about for "genuine refugees/asylum seekers.

No.The Brits won't all come flooding home just as existing EU migrants here in Britain won't be sent back to their respective countries.At worst they may have to fill out some paperwork.People were living abroad long before the EU was a thing.

[kirklancaster]

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW JUST HOW THE CORRUPT POLICIES OF THE EU HAVE DECIMATED THE LIVES OF OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND ORDINARY WORKING UK CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND HOW THEY HAVE DESTROYED ONCE HEALTHY INDUSTRIES, THEN READ THESE EXTRACTS FROM;
"How the EU Common Fisheries Policy Permanently Damaged Scotland:*A Warning for Iceland . By Dr James Wilkie, David Thomson and associates."


Fishing has been a key element of the Scottish economy for many centuries, even thousands of years.**During those centuries the Scottish fishing industry harvested the seas while maintaining healthy fish stocks in balance with the rate of exploitation.**

In 1970 this all changed with the advent of control from Brussels, a move that resulted in an economic, environmental, ecological, social and cultural disaster.**

The direct results for Scotland have included almost 100,000 job losses and an annual loss of wealth creation of the order of ₤1,500 million.**

The Start of Control from Brussels

The European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy*(CFP), dating from 1970, basically consists of an agreement between the then six members of the European Economic Community*(EEC)*that fishing vessels belonging to member states would have free and equal access to the waters of all other members*(Directive 2141/70, later replaced by 101/76).

The clear purpose was to gain unrestricted access to the rich fish stocks of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Norway, which together with Denmark had just applied to join the*EEC.

It had nothing to do with management or Conservation.**It was a ruthless political gambit, with no legal basis, to give powerful commercial interests in other member states an entry ticket to the well conserved Norwegian, UK and especially Scottish waters, which they would otherwise have been unable to exploit.**

The excellent 2009 study by The Taxpayers’ Alliance, which reveals that the total annual economic cost to the UK of the EU Common Fisheries Policy is Ł2,813 million, or Ł2.8 billion (American billion 109*– European billion 1012*is different).**Of that total, Ł2,100 million was from the loss of access to home waters.*

Since Scotland has over 66 % of the UK EEZ, then Ł1,400 million of that loss relates to Scotland.*Adding the other estimates proportionally from the TPA study now make the Scottish fisheries sector loss due to the CFP over Ł1,500 million every single year.

Dr Lee Rotherham, who carried out the research for The Taxpayers’ Alliance, said:

“For years everyone has known, even in Brussels, that the Common Fisheries Policy has been a disaster. It has trashed the environment, wrecked coastal communities like Hull and Grimsby, and dumped hundreds of thousands of tonnes of dead fish uselessly back into the sea. If any government minister had ordered such actions, he would have been lynched. The time is long overdue to scrap the CFP and manage our territorial seas with the self-interest and self-enlightenment of countries like Norway, Iceland and Canada.”

Costing the Common Fisheries Policy, January 2009

Commenting on the TPA study, the Aberdeen (Scotland)*Press and Journal*in its editorial of 30 January 2009, The Price of Fish, wrote:*“In case any proof were needed that the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy is one of the most damaging political schemes ever to affect a UK industry, some facts about its impact on every single household will help. Pressure group The Taxpayer’s Alliance has calculated that the policy costs every family Ł111 a year in higher taxes and lost business and puts ₤186 a year on the average food bill.

As the north and northeast of Scotland has witnessed, the impact on jobs has been severe. More than 9,000 directly in fishing and up to 90,000 have been lost from onshore dependent industries. This is before the baffling phenomenon of throwing away tons of dead fish each year has been considered.**The problem with the CFP of course, is that we are pretty much stuck in a world in which the European Union will forever meddle with this vital Scottish industry. …**The CFP is a triumph of pork barrel politics over commonsense and compassion.”***

Summary of Scottish Losses

No calculable benefits to Scotland of EU membership could possibly compensate for this haemorrhage of Scotland’s economic wealth. The appalling figure of lost value creation of ₤1,500 million every single year, and the loss of almost 100,000 jobs from the Scottish employment market, represents nothing less than a national disaster – brought about for no better reason than the crazed ideology of “sharing the common resource” with other EU member countries.

What the figures cannot reveal is the amount of personal tragedy and communal disruption that lie behind them: bankruptcies, the uprooting of individuals and families, the destruction of thriving communities with centuries-old cultural traditions and communal lives. Major harbours, like Lossiemouth, that were the focus of social and economic life twelve months in the year, are now marinas for a handful of yachts. One can imagine the reaction if Brussels had reduced the Spanish or French fishing fleets by almost two thirds simply to make way for incomers. And fishing is by no means as important to those countries as it is to Scotland.

The costs to public funds of unemployment and other social benefits as well as broader economic consequences, including loss of tax income, probably brought the total loss nearer to Ł900 million every year. This exceeds by a huge margin any economic benefits Scotland receives from the European Union, especially when it is considered that Scotland as a member of the UK is already a substantial net contributor to the EU.

The above calculations were made in 2004, on the basis of the then available information, by Dr James Wilkie, with data and guidance from Japanese economist Kaz Nagao, Fishermen’s Association (FAL) Secretary Roddy McColl, and fishery consultant David Thomson.**

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DECENT, HARDWORKING, HONEST, ORDINARY PEOPLE IN THE UK HAVE SEEN THEIR LIVES SHATTERED BY THE CORRUPT PRACTICES AND SELF-INTEREST POLICIES OF THE EU

VOTE OUT.OUT.OUT. OUT. OUT.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I feel it is you who are confused Kizzy. You stated "If we were to take a seat in the WTO" So what else can you mean by the word; 'We' other than, 'we in the United Kingdom'? To which my response was perfectly correct in pointing out that 'we' have been a member of the WTO since the 1st of Januaury 1995.

You are being deliberately infantile with your comments in the rest of your post.

We may be a member, that isn't what I referred to however. I specifically said 'if we were to take a seat'
You misinterpreted my post and then chose to insult me, I don't appreciate the antagonistic tone just as we are on opposing sides of the debate.
Mocking posts about brick walls aren't conducive to a rational debate either, the insinuation anyone with a counter opinion to yours is rather insulting.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

We may be a member, that isn't what I referred to however. I specifically said 'if we were to take a seat'
You misinterpreted my post and then chose to insult me, I don't appreciate the antagonistic tone just as we are on opposing sides of the debate.
Mocking posts about brick walls aren't conducive to a rational debate either, the insinuation anyone with a counter opinion to yours is rather insulting.

How have I insulted you?

I misinterpreted nothing of the sort.

We will reclaim our seat at the World Trade Organisation, a seat we vacated because the EU speaks on our behalf. From that position we will be able to negotiate our own trade deals with emerging economies and generate jobs in the UK.

As for 'mocking posts about brick walls' - WHY THE FECK ARE YOU TELLING ME? I did not post any brick walls.

I'm done with you and your old 'drawing me into a personal argument tricks to get me banned' - from now on I will ignore you -- even though it is YOU who keep stalking and baiting me when I have not even directly communicated with you.

From now on if you do not like anything I write - sue me - preferably in that corrupt, over abused Court of Human Rights.

BYE.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

We may be a member, that isn't what I referred to however. I specifically said 'if we were to take a seat'
You misinterpreted my post and then chose to insult me, I don't appreciate the antagonistic tone just as we are on opposing sides of the debate.
Mocking posts about brick walls aren't conducive to a rational debate either, the insinuation anyone with a counter opinion to yours is rather insulting.

I put the brick walls up because the only reply that seems to be coming back at us is, "That's got nothing to do with the referendum"

[arista]

No need to fight you 2

[arista]

Yes Shag - Cool jokes

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by wannashag

I put the brick walls up because the only reply that seems to be coming back at us is, "That's got nothing to do with the referendum"

Try stick to the issue in discussion then, don't berate others for pointing out you're veering wildly off topic.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by wannashag

I put the brick walls up because the only reply that seems to be coming back at us is, "That's got nothing to do with the referendum"

And hilariously funny it was too Shag.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by arista

No need to fight you 2

There's no fighting, we're a loving community here at tibb.

But debate is good and should get heated by passion, especially with a topic like this.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

And hilariously funny it was too Shag.

I found it as funny as you find my virgin mary pics clearly.
It's easy to misinterpret pictures in serious debates.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I found it as funny as you find my virgin mary pics clearly.
It's easy to misinterpret pictures in serious debates.

I can't believe you didn't enjoy my comedy?

I'm a comic genius, me mam said.

[arista]

Originally Posted by wannashag

There's no fighting, we're a loving community here at tibb.

But debate is good and should get heated by passion, especially with a topic like this.

Yes
Tell that to the Conservatives

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes
Tell that to the Conservatives

Bang On Right Arista.

[Kizzy]

Yes so nice to see IDS taking a brake from savaging the vulnerable to concentrate on firmly placing daggers in his leaders back. ...naw.

[DemolitionRed]

I sense a one sided clique forming...give it up guys because from where I'm sitting, this is starting to look awfully bitchy.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Try stick to the issue in discussion then, don't berate others for pointing out you're veering wildly off topic.

The irony of that is that Kirk was talking about immigration (which is definitely on topic), when he was told "That has NOTHING to do with being in or out of Europe"

And earlier when we were talking about the young girl on question time (on there debating the referendum, so again on topic), you said "What has that got to do with an in out referendum?"

And now you claim that I wildly veered off topic, which is a false claim.

[joeysteele]

With the fullest respect, as to those talking to most who have made their minds up to stay in, maybe it is like talking to a brick wall, however their decision to decide that way is their right and no insults should be part of any rational debate.

However ,equally so, as I find daily,talking to most people who are totally on the out side is also probably like talking to a brick wall.
They will not give any inch either.

However I still have not heard from anyone in the 'out' camp,and Kirk your graphs and info say a great deal but still do not fill me with assurances I would need to think of changing my mind.
Much of the no info harks back to over 40 years ago and the World is a vastly different place from then.

I still then at least know where I am and the UK is in the EU at this time, where its been, where it is and what the future in it will be like too.
Some of it I like some of it I would love to change and some I wish was gone.
However the facts are there, unlike as to the UK out of the EU.

Watching and listening to Ian Duncan Smith this morning,actually turned me more to the in camp than the out camp if that was possible.
Trying to figure out what that man would love to be able to do that's even worse than he is now,out of the EU, doesn't bear thinking about for me.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by wannashag

The irony of that is that Kirk was talking about immigration (which is definitely on topic), when he was told "That has NOTHING to do with being in or out of Europe"

And earlier when we were talking about the young girl on question time (on there debating the referendum, so again on topic), you said "What has that got to do with an in out referendum?"

And now you claim that I wildly veered off topic, which is a false claim.

I didn't say that about Lexie Hill, I asked if her point on QT was in regard to immigration or minimum wage.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by wannashag

I put the brick walls up because the only reply that seems to be coming back at us is, "That's got nothing to do with the referendum"

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

And hilariously funny it was too Shag.

You may find it hilariously funny, but you have missed the fundamental point, no matter how many times it is said.

On this thread, Kirk has stated that illegal immigration will go down if we leave europe. There is no basis for that assumption as leaving the EU will not change people wanting to enter into this country illegally. As long as people continue to say that, I will refute it, because it is simply not true

It has also been stated that it will stop Jihadists getting in. As europe is predominantly non muslim, and those muslims fleeing war or jihadists currently within europe cannot come to the UK legally. We are not and never have been part of the schengen agreement. Refugees to other countries within the EU cannot come to the UK legally.

Are my points clear now, or are you going to persist with your hilarious brick wall images?

[bitontheslide]

Enjoy your serious debates folks

[kirklancaster]

NET IMMIGRATION INTO THE UK INCREASES TO RECORD LEVELS FOR THE THIRD CONSECUTIVE YEAR - UK POPULATION ALARMINGLY PREDICTED TO TOP 70 MILLION IN NEXT 12 YEARS



By Danny Shaw, home affairs correspondent, BBC News

The release of the immigration statistics, every three months, is a day the Home Office must dread.

Since the end of 2012, net migration has being going up almost continuously. Net migration, of course, is the key figure we look for because the government is aiming to bring it down to below 100,000 by 2020.
It failed to do that by the general election in May, and, to much surprise, decided to stick with the target when critics were saying it was unachievable and should be dropped. A lot can happen in four and a half years of course, but it's hard to see how it can do it.

Emigration is broadly stable and immigration is at record levels and rising from both EU and non-EU countries.

If ministers are to reach their goal, they'll have to reduce the so-called "pull factors". That's tough when one of the biggest attractions of the UK is its relatively buoyant economy and the prospect of work.
The ONS said the rise was due to a 62,000 increase in immigration to 636,000 and a 20,000 reduction in emigration to 300,000.
More than two thirds of the immigration increase was driven by EU citizens, the majority of whom came to Britain to work.
Immigration minister James Brokenshire said the government was committed to reforms "across the whole of government" to deliver "the controlled migration system".
"Our new Immigration Bill will address illegal working, the pull factors that draw migrants to Britain and the availability of public services which help them to remain here unlawfully," he said.
"The last two set of figures show record levels of EU immigration which show why the prime minister is right to negotiate with the EU to reform welfare to reduce the financial incentives that attract EU migrants to the UK."
The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford said asylum remained "the smallest component" of UK immigration "by some distance".
Director Madeleine Sumption said migration for work and study were "the largest categories" and said changes in net migration were "mainly being driven" by economic factors like the success of the UK economy rather than by new policies.
Alp Mehmet, vice chairman of Migration Watch UK, said the figures were "very disappointing" and warned "the pressure on our infrastructure will intensify" if the numbers continued to rise.

OUR SERVICES ARE UNDER IMMENSE PRESSURE AND FAILING - THE N.H.S, POLICE, FIRE SERVICES, SCHOOLS, BENEFITS SYSTEM, HOUSING - THE LIST IS ENDLESS, YET MILLIONS MORE ARE FREE TO CONTINUE IMMIGRATING TO THIS COUNTRY TO EXACERBATE THE ALREADY CRITICAL SITUATION.

AS THE ABOVE REPORT SHOWS - OUR ECONOMIC SUCCESS IS THE NUMBER 1. REASON THAT MIGRANTS FLOCK TO THIS COUNTRY NOT 'ASYLUM', WHICH REMAINS "THE SMALLEST COMPONENT OF UK IMMIGRATION BY SOME DISTANCE".

MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF THE MASSIVE IMMIGRATION INCREASE WAS DRIVEN BY EU CITIZENS - THE MAJORITY OF WHOM CAME HERE TO WORK NOT FOR ASYLUM OR REFUGEE REASONS.

IF WE EXIT THE CORRUPT, DAMAGING, SELF-SERVING EU, THEN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF IMMIGRANTS TO THIS COUNTRY WILL BE REDUCED BY TWO THIRDS - LEAVING MORE FUNDS AND STAFF TO COMPREHENSIVELY POLICE OUR OWN BORDERS AND IMPLEMENT THE PROPER IMMIGRATION VETTING PROCEDURES WHICH ARE NECESSARY IN THESE TERRORIST DOMINATED TIMES.

GENUINE REFUGEES - THE SMALLEST COMPONENT OF IMMIGRANTS - WILL NEVER BE TURNED AWAY AND THERE WILL BE INCREASED FUNDING AVAILABLE FROM SAVINGS MADE TO PROPERLY ATTEND TO THEIR GENUINE NEEDS.

IT IS FAR EASIER TO PROCESS SMALLER NUMBERS OF GENUINE REFUGEES THAN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF EU ECONOMIC MIGRANTS, FAR LESS COSTLY, AND IT CAN BE DONE WITH MORE EFFICIENCY.


WHEN TURKEY JOINS THE EU ANOTHER 79 MILLION OF ITS CITIZENS ARE THEN ELIGIBLE TO IMMIGRATE TO THIS COUNTRY AS 'ECONOMIC EU MIGRANTS' - DO YOU BELIEVE WE CAN COPE WITH EVEN A FRACTION OF THESE NEW IMMIGRANTS ON TOP OF THOSE ALREADY FLOODING HERE IN THEIR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS PER YEAR?

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG, OR XENOPHOBIC OR RACIST, WITH WANTING TO CARE FOR YOUR OWN PEOPLE NO MATTER HOW CHARITABLE YOU ARE - ESPECIALLY WHEN HUGE SECTIONS OF OUR SOCIETY, INCLUDING THE YOUNG, ARE BEING MARGINALISED AND NEGLECTED AND LEFT WITH NO HOPE, YET IMMENSE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR MAKING OTHERS LIVES MORE COMFORTABLE.

IS IT RIGHT THAT THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES WITHIN THE UK ARE STRUGGLING TO EXIST,WHILE OVER Ł30 MILLION POUNDS EACH YEAR IS BEING PAID OUT BY THIS COUNTRY IN CHILD BENEFIT PAYMENTS CLAIMED BY 20,660 OPPORTUNIST SCROUNGING IMMIGRANT FAMILIES IN THE UK FOR 34,199 OF THEIR CHILDREN LIVING BACK IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES????


AND THIS IS ONLY THE VERY TINY TIP OF A VERY LARGE ICEBERG WHEN IT COMES TO THE BILLIONS OF POUNDS PER YEAR THAT HEMORRAGES FROM THIS COUNTRY TO OTHER EU COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF THE SELF-SERVING ANTI-BRITISH OPPORTUNIST EU.


THE ONLY WAY TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION IS TO VOTE OUT.

OUT.OUT.OUT.OUT.OUT.OUT.OUT.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

You may find it hilariously funny, but you have missed the fundamental point, no matter how many times it is said.

On this thread, Kirk has stated that illegal immigration will go down if we leave europe. There is no basis for that assumption as leaving the EU will not change people wanting to enter into this country illegally. As long as people continue to say that, I will refute it, because it is simply not true

It has also been stated that it will stop Jihadists getting in. As europe is predominantly non muslim, and those muslims fleeing war or jihadists currently within europe cannot come to the UK legally. We are not and never have been part of the schengen agreement. Refugees to other countries within the EU cannot come to the UK legally.

Are my points clear now, or are you going to persist with your hilarious brick wall images?

I think you have misinterpreted my post BOTS. Two thirds of immigrants to the UK are Economic Migrants from EU Countries. If we exit that corrupt wasteful organisation, the immigration figures WILL be drastically reduced, and the millions of miles of bureaucratic EU Red Tape which binds our hands when it comes to controlling our own borders will be removed.

This will leave hundreds of millions of pounds available for extra funding to both increase our Immigration Staff numbers to increase efficiency in vetting all remaining applicants, AND to fund extra Border Staff to tackle the massive problem of Illegal Immigrants.

[DemolitionRed]

Perhaps now is the time to confess I'm dyslexic and large text in an array of colours are really difficult for me to read.