Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Have to say this thread is providing some great entertainment!!!
Two points I'll pick up on, both by NW1.
Those horrible dark UK winters. Seriously? Are they really that bad? Now I know SAD is an actual thing and not to be taken lightly. Depression runs intermittently on one side of my extended family so I know its no joke. But there are far worse places in the World where winter really is truly long and dark. Have to say the apparent nastiness of our winters wasn't apparent as I sat on the end of Bournemouth Pier between xmas and the NY in glorious sunshine and 17c last year!
OK I will apologise for having a little bit of a rant on the topic of immigration, but it's one of those things that I have very strong opinions on. Occasionally I let it get the better of me... I think I need to steer well clear of this thread when this subject comes up.
But I will say for some of us, the UK winters are an issue and do cause a significant mood decrease. Late November is a particularly difficult time as it's extremely dark, and still getting darker. I am already counting the days until late January, the nights drawing out significantly, and the appearance of the snowdrops which are the first glorious sign of spring. It's not just the darkness, it's the poor weather which comes with it, due to the fact that we border the Atlantic and are a long way north. That means that, unlike many other European countries, we are on the storm track. So the UK is a world-leader for a combination of darkness, wet/damp weather, and lack of snow (which I do like) in the winter; I believe in Europe and North America, for example, only Ireland, Iceland and Norway have a worse winter climate in that respect. Sweden has even shorter days - about an hour shorter in Stockholm - but has the compensating factor of a drier climate (so presumably more sunshine, which compensates for the 3pm sunsets somewhat) and more snow, for instance. And "glorious sunshine and 17C" is an extraordinarily rare combination between about mid-Nov and mid-Jan and, IMX, just about impossible in December; I have to confess not recalling that specific occasion but I wasn't in Bournemouth admittedly.
But I'll stop going on about it now because I think this is, as others have observed, one of these issues where many of us have strong views based on our own personal experience and fundamental viewpoints.
It is mathematically indisputable that if - say - 10 000 new people move into an area, then, depending how many occupy a house, there will be x 000 fewer houses available for local people than if no-one had moved in (at least until more houses can be built). Unless there was previously a large surplus of houses, that means that some locals will be forced out of the area, probably against their will.
It's also mathematically indisputable that if - say - 5,000 couples have children then, depending on how many want to move out, there will be a shortage of x 000 houses for those local people.
It's also mathematically indisputable that if - say - 5,000 couples have children then, depending on how many want to move out, there will be a shortage of x 000 houses for those local people.
But if having children is occurring at broadly population-replacement levels then this will be almost exactly balanced by older people dying, so is unlikely to cause any issues with housing. I don't believe there is anywhere in the UK where people having children is currently causing anything like the kind of rapid population increases that parts of the country have seen due to migration. (There will of course always be other long term trends: One obvious one in the UK is the trend towards smaller households, but again those are happening on much longer timescales than migration - and particularly FOM-based migration - has caused).
But if having children is occurring at broadly population-replacement levels then this will be almost exactly balanced by older people dying, so is unlikely to cause any issues with housing.
In modern days, no it hasn't - because the necessary population growth has been supplied by imports. If we cut that off then we'll have to depend on domestic production. Either way, the growth model that we've chosen to use requires increasing numbers of workers.
In modern days, no it hasn't - because the necessary population growth has been supplied by imports. If we cut that off then we'll have to depend on domestic production. Either way, the growth model that we've chosen to use requires increasing numbers of workers.
So the growth model requires increasing numbers of workers, What sort of ratio are we aiming for in terms of ratio of economically active (workers) to economically non-active (non-workers)?
However in that ratio , workers are not homogenous, pay and therefore tax take from pay are very different for due to non-homogenuity . A single computer programmer , paid £90,000 per annum paying £20,000 per annum in income tax, is not homogenous with supermarket-shelf stackers on £15,000 each (6 * £15,000 == £90,000) and each shelf stacker pays around £1000 per annum tax, aggregate tax take from the six a mere £5000. Where immigration went wrong is simply too few high-earning high-taxation programmers entering to our country, far too many shelf stackers entering our country
It's also mathematically indisputable that if - say - 5,000 couples have children then, depending on how many want to move out, there will be a shortage of x 000 houses for those local people.
Generally you need each couple to have an average of over 2.4 children just to maintain household sizes.
However 5,000 couples does not equal 5,000 sets of parents. As (and for simplicity I'm only counting the production of children, so not including adoption - as that is just the relocation of children who have been produced) some will not want children, some may want children and are not be able to have them, some may be same sex couples who would need assistance from a third party, some may be too old to have children and so on.
Even then there'll be quite a few families where there's only 1 or 2 children, meaning that (just to maintain the same population size) there's plenty of scope for couples to have 5+ children. However such families are now fairly rare.
It's why, whilst the overall population has risen by about 13% in the 20 years between 1996 and 2016 the number of children rose by about 2%, meaning that there's now proportionally fewer children than there was before and so even if immigration wasn't increasing the number of children (either directly or through immigrants having children when they arrive here) we'd still be seeing a falling population fairly soon as there's not enough children being born.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So the growth model requires increasing numbers of workers, What sort of ratio are we aiming for in terms of ratio of economically active (workers) to economically non-active (non-workers)?
Workers are not homogenous, pay and therefore tax take from pay are very different. A single computer programmer , paid £90,000 per annum paying £20,000 per annum in income tax, is not homogenous with the six supermarket-shelf stackers on £15,000 each (6 * £15,000 == £90,000) and each shelf stacker pays around £1000 per annum tax, aggregate tax take £5000. Where immigration went wrong is simply too few high-earning high-taxation programmers, far too many shelf stackers.
As I highlighted earlier the ratio of >65 to <65 in terms of population growth is 2:1, given that 97 is probably about as old as a lot of people get to the ages 0-65 and 65-97 are also split about 2:1. As such whilst there's been significant immigration in recent years (which is unlikely to have altered the numbers >65 by very much yet), it appears that all is been doing is broadly maintaining the ratio between workers and those who have retired.
If there's been an imbalance in high paid jobs vs low paid jobs then that's going to cause the country issues going forwards, especially given that things like the pension triple lock are likely to increase the load on the finances of the government.
In store staffing level for supermarkets hasn't changed much, as automation has allowed staff who would have previously been needed to work on tills to be used for other roles, however there's been an increase in delivery drivers.
Arguably what we pay delivery staff (not necessarily supermarket drivers or postie's) is too low for the work they do. It's an area where we may well find ourselves facing inflationary pressures very soon as people find that other roles pay more for less effort/stress. Given that there's been shortages of lots of other staff is not unreasonable to assume that there's also issues with retaining them.
If immigration were to flaking for any length of time we'd likely find that wages would have to increase as there was a shortage of people to do the work. That's certainly been highlighted in the wake of COVID/Brexit (as they were so close to each other is hard to assign the reduced workforce to one or the other as they would both have had some impact on it).
One final point, whilst it would be ideal to have lots in high paid jobs, those people still need people in service jobs (arguably more so than this on lower rates of pay). As they still need food, still need their car fixed, still need their bins emptied, etc. The reason that they may need more people in service jobs is that they are more likely to eat out, more likely to pay for lesure activities, etc. than someone stacking shelves.
In modern days, no it hasn't - because the necessary population growth has been supplied by imports. If we cut that off then we'll have to depend on domestic production. Either way, the growth model that we've chosen to use requires increasing numbers of workers.
Exactly this, anyone who opposes population growth/high immigration should be equally opposed to the economic growth model, we cannot have the latter without the former and technology can only go so far.
As it happens news today has net migration at 504,000 in the year to June 2022, and this is all after leaving the single market.
I was informed that being in the Single Market and therefore Freedom of Movement was the main driver of immigration, so why hasn't this number plummeted? Surely there is a mistake in the figures?
Who pays for the state pension and other support payments from the state that people who have retired receive? The money comes from the taxes of the people that are currently working. In other words, anyone who currently pays tax (any form of tax) helps to pay.
The system relies on enough tax income to work. Even if the number of young workers stands still (no change in numbers), over time, government will have to increase the level of tax income per person, just to keep up with people living longer (and hence receiving more pension and maybe more support payments).
This has been known within government for many, many years. Certainly long before Cameron’s government. It’s often called the pension black hole.
If the number of young workers falls…. Well, I hope people enjoy working for longer, as the current ‘solution’ is to keep increasing the age at which people start to receive the state pension.
Exactly this, anyone who opposes population growth/high immigration should be equally opposed to the economic growth model, we cannot have the latter without the former and technology can only go so far.
As it happens news today has net migration at 504,000 in the year to June 2022, and this is all after leaving the single market.
This is the absolute elephant in the room. Its an absolute fundamental issue that transcends all political boundaries. At what point does 'growth' become unsustainable?
UK net migration topped 500,000 in year to June 2022 - data
Reuters
LONDON, Nov 24 (Reuters) - Net migration to the United Kingdom rose to an estimated record of 504,000 in the year to June 2022, official statistics showed on Thursday, driven by an increase in the number of non-European Union nationals.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said a recovery of travel following COVID-19, and an increase in arrivals of international students who had been studying remotely during the pandemic had contributed to the rise.
An estimated 1.1 million long-term immigrants arrived in the year to June, an increase in 435,000 on the previous year.
Three new visa schemes -- for Ukrainians fleeing the war, the resettlement of Afghan nationals and a route for Hong Kong British nationals -- together added around 186,000 to the number of arrivals, the ONS said.
"A series of world events have impacted international migration patterns in the 12 months to June 2022. Taken together these were unprecedented," Jay Lindop, Director of the ONS Centre for International Migration, said.
"Migration from non-EU countries, specifically students, is driving this rise," Lindop added. "The many factors independent of each other contributing to migration at this time mean it is too early to say whether this picture will be sustained."
Concerns over the impact of immigration were one of the big drivers behind Britain's vote to leave the European Union in 2016, with then Prime Minister David Cameron repeatedly pledging to get net migration levels below 100,000 a year.
The previous record high for net migration was just over 330,000 in 2015.
Separate figures released by the British government on Thursday showed 33,029 people were detected arriving by small boats across the Channel between January and September this year, with 61% of those people arriving over the summer in the months July to September.
The month of August saw the highest number of small boat arrivals of any month since data has been collected, it said.
Reporting by Sachin Ravikumar and Farouq Suleiman, Editing by Kylie MacLellan
This is the absolute elephant in the room. Its an absolute fundamental issue that transcends all political boundaries. At what point does 'growth' become unsustainable?
Some environmental groups already argue that our current systems are unsustainable. In many places, economic growth is based on digging up, or extraction of minerals from the ground. But when this activity stops, the area concerned goes into decline very rapidly.
Increasing sea levels will eventually make a lot of low lying land economically unusable, land where we humans have built on extensively. Plus other changes due to climate change combined with the ever increasing world population, will likely lead to more conflict. Which could mean more wars.
And as we are seeing from the war caused by Russia, the invasion of Ukraine, as well as the huge economic damage to Ukraine itself, it is having a very significant impact for many other countries around the world. Including Russia.
Countries really need to work together rather than against one another. brexit is definitely going in the wrong direction. One of the fundamental principles of the E.U. is for members to work together. Is it perfect, of course not. But it’s a start.
Something that's worth highlighting within the recent stats for immigration is the high number of students, they will be paying a lot more than British students for the same course. Then on top of that they will be bringing in money from other countries and spending it in our economy.
Whilst they may then leave the UK for work, they certainly aren't a drain on our government.
If they stay, there's a good chance that they'll be in a high paid job, potentially paying more than the average amount of tax.
Either way, they are likely to be very helpful in terms of spending in our economy (even the course fees end up in the economy through staff pay).
I was informed that being in the Single Market and therefore Freedom of Movement was the main driver of immigration, so why hasn't this number plummeted? Surely there is a mistake in the figures?
Net migration (ie the difference between people coming in and those leaving) is up - half a million more in the UK.
Now during the referendum I constantly read that there was too much immigration, putting pressure on our roads, hospitals, schools, surgeries and using up valuable housing stock. Etc. Especially, if I recall, some on this forum!
Maybe I was right, that when we were in the EU, many came in, but many left, especially the retired moving to the EU (Spain/France for example) to permanently retire thus freeing up our health services, housing etc.
Since we lost that freedom of movement, it's become far more difficult for the retired to do that, example they need a minimum income which many can't reach; yet the poorer retired would find their money going further abroad (fresh food, lower energy costs etc). Then there are banking issues, health insurance, transfer of pensions.
So leaving the EU has caused immigration to rise. Should have put that on the side of a bus?
However 5,000 couples does not equal 5,000 sets of parents. As (and for simplicity I'm only counting the production of children, so not including adoption - as that is just the relocation of children who have been produced) some will not want children, some may want children and are not be able to have them, some may be same sex couples who would need assistance from a third party, some may be too old to have children and so on.
No, leaving the EU has not caused immigration to rise. Immigration has risen for reasons entirely unrelated to Brexit. It looks like the biggest drivers of that have been an increase in the numbers of foreign students choosing to study in the UK, plus the one-off circumstances of our giving residency rights to people from Hong Kong (170 000 according to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63743259) and taking in refugees from Ukraine (76 000) There have also been a massive 73 000 illegally crossing the Channel in small boats. All of that would almost certainly have happened even if we'd still been in the EU.
On the other hand, EU migration has become net negative (more people leaving the UK than arriving), and that is almost certainly because of Brexit.
Net migration levels are extremely high, which to my mind is a little worrying from the point of view of infrastructure and finding enough places for everyone to live etc., but on any sensible analysis, it would have been even higher if it wasn't for Brexit.
No, leaving the EU has not caused immigration to rise. Immigration has risen for reasons entirely unrelated to Brexit. It looks like the biggest drivers of that have been an increase in the numbers of foreign students choosing to study in the UK, plus the one-off circumstances of our giving residency rights to people from Hong Kong (170 000 according to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63743259) and taking in refugees from Ukraine (76 000) There have also been a massive 73 000 illegally crossing the Channel in small boats. All of that would almost certainly have happened even if we'd still been in the EU.
On the other hand, EU migration has become net negative (more people leaving the UK than arriving), and that is almost certainly because of Brexit.
Net migration levels are extremely high, which to my mind is a little worrying from the point of view of infrastructure and finding enough places for everyone to live etc., but on any sensible analysis, it would have been even higher if it wasn't for Brexit.
In that case can we please return to the EU so we can get our freedom of movement back and tear down Farage's posters of millions trooping in from Turkey? And your latter point is all supposition. If we had migration from the EU there would be no need to hand out visas to everyone else (save for the humanitarian ones eg Ukraine, and they will, hopefully, eventually return). We would have, er, control?
In that case can we please return to the EU so we can get our freedom of movement back and tear down Farage's posters of millions trooping in from Turkey?
Given that net immigration is already extremely high, would you really want to make it even higher by adding lots of Freedom of Movement immigration to the 500K/year that we already have?
Given that net immigration is already extremely high, would you really want to make it even higher by adding lots of Freedom of Movement immigration to the 500K/year that we already have?
Absurd changing of goalposts - brexit will allow us to bring net migration down < 100k / rejoining the EU will lead to even greater immigration than 500k
Who pays for the state pension and other support payments from the state that people who have retired receive? The money comes from the taxes of the people that are currently working. In other words, anyone who currently pays tax (any form of tax) helps to pay.
The system relies on enough tax income to work. Even if the number of young workers stands still (no change in numbers), over time, government will have to increase the level of tax income per person, just to keep up with people living longer (and hence receiving more pension and maybe more support payments).
This has been known within government for many, many years. Certainly long before Cameron’s government. It’s often called the pension black hole.
If the number of young workers falls…. Well, I hope people enjoy working for longer, as the current ‘solution’ is to keep increasing the age at which people start to receive the state pension.
As part of the recent Autumn Statement the government has frozen the income tax thresholds until 2028. With the threshold for anyone paying basic income tax being frozen at £12,570 for at least another 5 years, more and more retired people will be paying some tax on their pensions received. With the large rise in State Pension next April, as a result retaining the triple lock, even people with quite small additional pensions from their workplace or private pensions will find themselves above the tax threshold. Having just reached my 66th birthday in addition to my pension from work I have just started to receive my state pension which puts me on around £20,000 a year meaning that I will pay quite a bit of tax. I know I’m fortunate to have this amount, compared to many less well off pensioners, but also many receive far more than me. The money the government will receive from income tax from pensioners is probably only a drop in the ocean but it will increase during the next few years.
The relative collapse of the UK economy since the mid-2000s combined with the fact that the social environment is still largely hostile towards immigrants makes largescale net inward migration from the EU expansion countries much less likely today than it was back then.
Given that net immigration is already extremely high, would you really want to make it even higher by adding lots of Freedom of Movement immigration to the 500K/year that we already have?
Given that net immigration is already extremely high, would you really want to make it even higher by adding lots of Freedom of Movement immigration to the 500K/year that we already have?
If there are no jobs to fill, they won't be able to settle, as FOM rules stated that an EU country could deport EU citizens from other member states after 3 months if they were not contributing to the economy (i.e. not working), unless they were not a burden on state support/social security. When it comes to immigration generally the way to cut it is to take away the demand, and that means to stop growing the economy ad infinitum.
If there are no jobs to fill, they won't be able to settle, as FOM rules stated that an EU country could deport EU citizens from other member states after 3 months if they were not contributing to the economy (i.e. not working), unless they were not a burden on state support/social security.
I realise I'm getting sucked into this debate again but I'm going to take a more MOR position with this comment.
This is actually, to me, a sensible compromise which, as a strongly pro-FoM person I would be quite happy with. Allow free movement UK <-> EU, but not allow benefits to be claimed unless you had been in work continuously for a set amount of time and then lose your job. This would significantly reduce the "emigrate to claim benefits" concern that many have.
We already restrict movement from outside the EU. People wanting to move to the UK already face quite onerous visa requirements. That means that roughly speaking, the only people from outside the EU who able to come and live here are:
People whose husbands or wives or other close family members live in the UK and are coming to join them.
People who have been offered certain employment in the UK - generally, stuff that the UK needs, or people whose background suggests they will contribute substantially to the UK economy
Students who pay large sums of money to UK universities to study here
Asylum seekers, plus people escaping the war in Ukraine and the persecution in Hong Kong.
Might I enquire which of these groups you would wish to prevent from coming to the UK just so that you can get visa-free residency rights in Europe?
Given that net immigration is already extremely high, would you really want to make it even higher by adding lots of Freedom of Movement immigration to the 500K/year that we already have?
One issue is that Brexit has harmed Britain’s growth prospects and has therefore made it more dependent on labour from abroad to attempt to be competitive. Also, nobody in this country shags anyone any more apparently, and fertility among the resident population is insufficient to provide for a rapidly aging top end of the populace.
I realise I'm getting sucked into this debate again but I'm going to take a more MOR position with this comment.
This is actually, to me, a sensible compromise which, as a strongly pro-FoM person I would be quite happy with. Allow free movement UK <-> EU, but not allow benefits to be claimed unless you had been in work continuously for a set amount of time and then lose your job. This would significantly reduce the "emigrate to claim benefits" concern that many have.
You are describing the situation in Germany, FoM to Germany requires around 30 months of being a taxpayer to acquire access to the German Welfare system.
This was explained to me by a friend , Dutch by birth and a resident citizen until his 30s, he worked and lived in Germany for several years before coming to live in UK.
He told me the German rules of eligibilty to welfare is the reason behind East Europeans bypassing Germany to settle in the UK. The UK is too generous and easily exploited. Holland
also has rigorous attitude to welfare access for arrivals.
Why are we the "soft-touch", self-building our own funeral pyre?
.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
