Thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians spotted at the borders

[Pretty pink fairy]

a massive generalisation which has been proven inaccurate by a couple of sound studies already posted.

he says living in Australia
regards
DR

 

[BadFish]

he says living in Australia
regards
DR

Another high quality and insightful contribution from you Pinko, What would we do with out you?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

another high quality and insightful contribution from you pinko, what would we do with out you?

did i say something wrong
regards
DR

 

[Deleted member 22389]

when we get the vote to decide in or out
regards
DR

I think that will be the conclusion in the end if these stupid EU rules don't change. There is a problem is some areas that needs sorting.

 

[hitony]

did i say something wrong
regards
DR

If your ability to use "Smileys" is stopped, what will you do?

 

[BadFish]

did i say something
regards
DR

Not since I have been on NSC

 

[sten_super]

England is a small island, and is the most densely populated country in Europe, fact.

Excellent use of an NSC-style FACT when in fact it is anything but.

The UK has the fourth-highest population density of any EU member state - behind Malta (a basket case due to it's tiny size, with 1318 people per square km), the Netherlands (495) and Belgium (364). The UK's population density (262 in 2012) is not massively ahead of Germany (229) although it is increasing while Germany's is remaining broadly constant. Both are well above the EU average of 116 people per sq km. The most sparsely populated are the northern-most members and some of the new member states (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia) although both Spain and France are below the EU average.

 

[Simster]

Excellent use of an NSC-style FACT when in fact it is anything but.

The UK has the fourth-highest population density of any EU member state - behind Malta (a basket case due to it's tiny size, with 1318 people per square km), the Netherlands (495) and Belgium (364). The UK's population density (262 in 2012) is not massively ahead of Germany (229) although it is increasing while Germany's is remaining broadly constant. Both are well above the EU average of 116 people per sq km. The most sparsely populated are the northern-most members and some of the new member states (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia) although both Spain and France are below the EU average.

Er, he said ENGLAND, not the UK! If he is wrong, it's not by much. England is broadly similarly densely populated to the Netherlands.

However, I can understand the confusion as he rather stupidly described England as a small island, which it isn't!

 

[sten_super]

Er, he said ENGLAND, not the UK! If he is wrong, it's not by much. England is broadly similarly densely populated to the Netherlands.

However, I can understand the confusion as he rather stupidly described England as a small island, which it isn't!

I assumed from his use of the island description that he meant the UK, but if he did mean England then in that case it's a completely moot point, because England isn't an independent nation and doesn't have an independent immigration policy. You could just as well say that Inner London has the second-highest population density of any geographical area in the EU (it does, behind Paris) - but that doesn't reflect just UK or EU immigration policy. Why have Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not been similarly swamped with immigrants - they are all subject to the same immigration policy.

Funnily enough googling 'England population density' brings up articles from the Daily Mail. And they say that England's population density is 411 people per sq km, which would still put it behind the Netherlands (according to Eurostat at least).

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The UKs population growth is unsustainable. We are constantly told we need to concrete over vast swathes of the Country, particularly the South East.

Hospitals are over stretched, teachers are expected to be able to teach large classes where the kids can't speak English, transport, both road and rail is a disaster.

Yes, controlled immigration can be a good thing, but at its current rate it's out of control, and that's a bad thing.

This is all quite probably true. The impact on our environment, the pressure on our social services is clearly being stretched by immigration combined with the population growth of citizens. BUT - aren't we led to believe that you have to have economic growth within our capitalist system or the whole house of cards comes crashing down, and with natural population growth slowing and the population ageing, we simply HAVE to have immigration of working-aged people or everything goes tits up and we can't afford to pay pensions and so on. There are those that will argue for a very different economic system and so on, which is great (and my preferred option as an environmentalist), but within our current paradigm surely immigration is essential and the way to resolve the issues you mention is simply to invest more in social services (and turn a blind eye to the environment)?

 

[CheeseRolls]

The most irritating aspect regarding migration is that we cannot do anything about it. At the moment our doors are open to as many people as possible from the EU, and I am not including people from outside the EU. When is this going to end? As others have mentioned we are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe now. Quality of life and space are far more important to me.

So towing the UKIP line then, the agenda has moved on and there is a recognition that there is an economic downside to such restrictions and the debate should be about what price we are prepared to pay for a less crowded "island" would you agree ?

The current policy of squeezing non EU migration has meant many of our top universities have missed out on overseas students and the associated fees they bring into the country. This is an important sector for the economy and part of a highly competitive global market. The consequences here of cutting headline figures will have a long term negative impact on not just education, but important research and development work, that is the future of a knowledge economy.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have agency workers, paid less than the minimum wage. Where these agencies are based elsewhere in the EU, it appears that local workers are undercut, wages are topped up by benefits and essentially we are offering yet another subsidy to agriculture and other low skill sectors.

http://www.wsandb.co.uk/wsb/news/2321359/miliband-attacked-over-pledge-to-close-low-pay-loophole
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-loophole-if-labour-wins-in-2015-9039194.html

If the net result is we have to pay more money for our food, is it worth the sacrifice, bearing in mind the estimated 300,000 workers paid in this way ?

 

[sten_super]

This is all quite probably true. The impact on our environment, the pressure on our social services is clearly being stretched by immigration combined with the population growth of citizens. BUT - aren't we led to believe that you have to have economic growth within our capitalist system or the whole house of cards comes crashing down, and with natural population growth slowing and the population ageing, we simply HAVE to have immigration of working-aged people or everything goes tits up and we can't afford to pay pensions and so on. There are those that will argue for a very different economic system and so on, which is great (and my preferred option as an environmentalist), but within our current paradigm surely immigration is essential and the way to resolve the issues you mention is simply to invest more in social services (and turn a blind eye to the environment)?

So towing the UKIP line then, the agenda has moved on and there is a recognition that there is an economic downside to such restrictions and the debate should be about what price we are prepared to pay for a less crowded "island" would you agree ?

The current policy of squeezing non EU migration has meant many of our top universities have missed out on overseas students and the associated fees they bring into the country. This is an important sector for the economy and part of a highly competitive global market. The consequences here of cutting headline figures will have a long term negative impact on not just education, but important research and development work, that is the future of a knowledge economy.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have agency workers, paid less than the minimum wage. Where these agencies are based elsewhere in the EU, it appears that local workers are undercut, wages are topped up by benefits and essentially we are offering yet another subsidy to agriculture and other low skill sectors.

http://www.wsandb.co.uk/wsb/news/2321359/miliband-attacked-over-pledge-to-close-low-pay-loophole
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-loophole-if-labour-wins-in-2015-9039194.html

If the net result is we have to pay more money for our food, is it worth the sacrifice, bearing in mind the estimated 300,000 workers paid in this way ?

I think these two cut to the crux of the matter. We, as a population, have become accustomed to paying certain low prices and to expecting certain high levels of government service. Without immigration it's hard to see how these can be maintained (as government finance sums rely on an ever-increasing working age population and some low-paid jobs seemingly rely on below minimum wage employment). Are the population ready to accept what amounts to a lower standard of living (higher prices and less government support) in exchange for a reduction in immigration? Even if the general populace are, what about those profiting from running companies staffed by low-paid immigrants? Or the public sector that is so dependent on an increasing population? If the true costs and benefits were discussed I suspect there'd be far more inertia on this issue - for better or worse.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

So towing the UKIP line then, the agenda has moved on and there is a recognition that there is an economic downside to such restrictions and the debate should be about what price we are prepared to pay for a less crowded "island" would you agree ?

The current policy of squeezing non EU migration has meant many of our top universities have missed out on overseas students and the associated fees they bring into the country. This is an important sector for the economy and part of a highly competitive global market. The consequences here of cutting headline figures will have a long term negative impact on not just education, but important research and development work, that is the future of a knowledge economy.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have agency workers, paid less than the minimum wage. Where these agencies are based elsewhere in the EU, it appears that local workers are undercut, wages are topped up by benefits and essentially we are offering yet another subsidy to agriculture and other low skill sectors.

http://www.wsandb.co.uk/wsb/news/2321359/miliband-attacked-over-pledge-to-close-low-pay-loophole
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-loophole-if-labour-wins-in-2015-9039194.html

If the net result is we have to pay more money for our food, is it worth the sacrifice, bearing in mind the estimated 300,000 workers paid in this way ?

I think it is worth the sacrifice. For me it's a case of let's see what would happen. I just can't see a point to any of this at the moment, I really can't.

 

[CheeseRolls]

I think it is worth the sacrifice.

So in this respect at least could you agree that all the mainstream parties are NOT the same ?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

So in this respect at least could you agree that all the mainstream parties are NOT the same ?

No they are not the same.

 

[soistes]

I was looking at graphs yesterday which showed a similar trend for unemployment in general so I would be interested to see evidence about youth unemployment in particular.

I couldn't quickly find the study specifically about youth unemployment (but I will), but this one uses similar methodology, at local level, to test for any relationship between immigration into an area and (total) unemployment into that area (there isn't one). It's a bit technical, but as far as I can see the analysis is sound and rigorous.
http://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/090112_163827.pdf

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

This is a new development arising from the Lisbon Treaty........

No it isn't.

 

[jgmcdee]

Nope, it's fine we have established that you are comfortable with the concept that laws can be imposed on the UK without the need for our democratically elected representatives to approve it.

This is a new development arising from the Lisbon Treaty, which the electorate was never asked to approve but I expect that will sit just as comfortably with you too.

You have a point about the Lords but that is a long standing historical lawmaking issue in this country. The hard reality is if you disagree with the unelected Lords interfering with legislation from the commons, then the EU Commission being able to impose law that bypasses the commons as well then this makes the prevailing situation even worse.

It certainly does not justify it.

You know, I've never stated if I'm for or against any parts of the EU or UK governmental systems. I'm just pointing out that they both have inconsistencies and areas which could not be considered purely democratic, and that most of the arguments against the EU system of legislation as it stands could equally be levelled against the UK system of legislation.

 

[cunning fergus]

You know, I've never stated if I'm for or against any parts of the EU or UK governmental systems. I'm just pointing out that they both have inconsistencies and areas which could not be considered purely democratic, and that most of the arguments against the EU system of legislation as it stands could equally be levelled against the UK system of legislation.

Sure, but one is the legacy of this country's political landscape which has been insitu for hundreds of years and is (slowly) being reformed. Further whilst the HoL can hold up and/or prevent laws proposed by democratically elected MPs becoming law (like the one below), there is the Parliament Act which the Commons can use to impose law without ratification from the HoL.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...U-referendum-bill-unlikely-to-become-law.html

The ability of the European Commission to act as an executive authority and to pass law without consent from member states however is very new political development, and was passed into european law as part of the Lisbon Treaty in 2007.

To be fair the European Commission was due to get this power under "The treaty for the constitution of Europe" in 2004, but it didnt because the treaty was rejected by the electorates of Holland and France in referenda in 2005. After "a period of reflection" by the EU following these rejections by those electorates these powers along with everthing else in the The treaty for the constitution of Europe were introduced into the Lisbon Treaty.

This was foisted onto the UK electorate without a referenda here although it was promised by the Govt (see pages 83/84).

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

Like I say if you think these positions are equal and therefore justifiable it is little wonder voters are so apathetic.....................maybe that's by design?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Sure, but one is the legacy of this country's political landscape which has been insitu for hundreds of years and is (slowly) being reformed. Further whilst the HoL can hold up and/or prevent laws proposed by democratically elected MPs becoming law (like the one below), there is the Parliament Act which the Commons can use to impose law without ratification from the HoL.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...U-referendum-bill-unlikely-to-become-law.html

The ability of the European Commission to act as an executive authority and to pass law without consent from member states however is very new political development, and was passed into european law as part of the Lisbon Treaty in 2007.

To be fair the European Commission was due to get this power under "The treaty for the constitution of Europe" in 2004, but it didnt because the treaty was rejected by the electorates of Holland and France in referenda in 2005. After "a period of reflection" by the EU following these rejections by those electorates these powers along with everthing else in the The treaty for the constitution of Europe were introduced into the Lisbon Treaty.

This was foisted onto the UK electorate without a referenda here although it was promised by the Govt (see pages 83/84).

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

Like I say if you think these positions are equal and therefore justifiable it is little wonder voters are so apathetic.....................maybe that's by design?

FFS. 27 pages debating something the rest of Europe got to grips with over a decade ago. EU, rail, airports.....can the UK be quick and decisive about anything?

And isnt it about time you reformed the NHS again? Or maybe teaching? I mean, this has not been totally over hauled for a while now. At least a year or so.