In better news...

The issue of the ballot and I've said before is the fault of those who decided the question and then campaigned.

If they were more truthful and outlined what everything actually meant they may have got a different result.

They made the bed they lie in it. We were only asked one question with 2 outcomes. I've never said anything different on this point.

If we restrict in movement then expect free outward movement then we are living in the clouds. It's been made very clear by the EU they won't accept any deal without free movement.

I personally don't have issue with anyone wanting to leave the UK into EU. (The destination country might but that is the feelings of that country) I do have a concern with no control of incoming due to free movement. Our government does not have the tools (and they claim money) to keep increasing the public services such as schools doctors and hospitals etc to cater for the inbound movement we have been subjected to for years.

 

I don't disagree with the first part. In my view there shouldn't have even been a referendum. But that's a different topic altogether.

The article today outlines possible plans, an optional scheme for UK nationals to have dual citizenship. Not a wider scheme of overall movement. On whats been presented, I'm in favour.

And I believe the stance of free movement IN is aligned with trade deals... akin to what India want to encourage a bigger trade deal.

But seeing as the government have zero clue what on earth they are going to do any time soon, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

Let me try this a different way.

Many of us on here own and drive cars. There are certain compulsory requirements - MOT, insurance, driving licence, obeying the laws, etc, and a number of optional choices - such as breakdown cover. You can choose to be in the AA and get help if your car breaks down, or you can choose not to be and have to pay a garage when it breaks down.

The same with TVs, if you own a TV you have to buy a TV licence, but you can pay extra for Sky, Netflix, Amazon or you can wait and buy/rent what you want to watch on dvd. Those are optional choices.

In both cases, there are compulsory costs and optional costs. We all have to pay the compulsory costs, but if you don't like the options, then you don't have to pay for them.

That is effectively what this would offer us. We can choose to have dual citizenship with the EU and have certain retained rights within the other EU states (paying extra for the privilege), or we can choose not to and have to pay extra if we ever need to use those rights.

 

Overall, research shows that EU immigrants are net contributors to the UK economy, with those from the pre-2004 EU states contributing more than those from the post-2004 states (but both are positive contributors). EU immigrants generally contribute more than those from outside the EU.

 

Who'd pay for the admin on that lunacy?

 

Those who chose to take advantage of it would pay for it out of their contributions, or probably the businesses that need employees with flexibility to work around the EU. I wouldn't expect it to be free or for the UK government to pay for it.

 

Thats what happened to the home grown warehouse workers isnt it?

 

Then what happens when the eu collapses in a few years time?

 

If you are correct and it collapses, then we stop paying and lose those rights and the money we've spent, exactly the same as that Christmas catalog the other year.

I'm not an expert on European politics, but I am willing to take the risk and spend my money to get easier access to work and travel in Europe if that is an option. If you don't want to do that then you are perfectly entitled not to. Until the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998, we have certain rights enshrined into law including freedoms of Association, privacy and discrimination so anyone that wants to can do it.

 

I'm not arguing against that at all.

But if the government doesn't support the increase in services for the same amount of net migration then people suffer.

 

It isn't when the funding they require doesn't increase in proportion of the increase in population

 

But the population is increasing due to immigration, and the immigrants are paying more into the system than they take out, so the government has more money to spend on essential services... So the issue is the government not increasing NHS spending due to austerity cutbacks rather than immigration itself then?

 

That's a separate argument entirely. Government funding is and always be an issue.

The complete uncontrollable border issue adds to it. You can't build houses hospitals and schools in good time etc if you have no way off planning what that immigration element is

Irrespective of whether they pay more into the system or not

 

Doesn't what you are saying miss the point. Immigrants contribute financially to the country. We have an ageing population and a relatively low birth rate storing up a myriad of problems. Immigrants tend to be younger and able to contribute to the economy.

The NHS would be in even more trouble without immigration.

Government funding is exactly the issue. Instead of spending the surplus crested by the hard work of immigrants it has been spruiked away on tax cuts and supporting casino bankers.

I really can't see the problem anyone would have in someone else deciding to take out EU citizenship. It won't happen for various reasons not least the party proposing it but in theory I can't see the issue.

 

I think the point I'm making is being completely missed.

Let's put it in a football scenario. More specifically BFC.

We have a capacity and so much we can deal with.

Let's just say we open the doors and let anyone in for free one match without selling any kind of ticket Absolutely no control.

They may spend the money in the stadium on various items. All income. Absolutely brilliant.

But the current season tickets don't get the seats they have as someone else is in them.

And we weren't able to react and increase capacity in that short space of time. Increase staff in various kiosks etc etc.

Absolutely no planning taken place other than thinking let's let everyone in to spend money.

But let's spend that money on a player instead taking into account absolutely nothing with the infrastructure.

Am I making sense of what I'm trying to put across? Genuinely

 

I understand what you are trying to get at its just that pretty much any analysis of our economy would say we desperately need migration. None of the abovE starts to address the main problem of an ageing population taking more out than they put in.

In football terms you don't bother trying to attract new fans in fact you actively discourage them. Eventually your old fans die or are too decrepit to turn up to watch. The few remaining employees then die of starvation because there's no one to feed or watch them. Your club turns to dust.

 

I honestly understand your point too. So would it not be better to control more or less who comes in.

Ie you need doctors so you don't restrict them. You need young builders again don't restrict.

You don't need hundreds of order pickers cos we have millions already so you restrict certain trades.

You can't do that under eu rules.

At the same time you are understanding the demagraphic of who's coming in and going and can react with a planned purpose to try and stave off problems. (Although who trusts any government to do that anyway).

So unless the eu allows us to control some elements of immigration then I won't support staying in it.