Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Once we've stopped uncontrolled immigration from the EU of unskilled migrants, we'll be able to allow immigrants in from all over the world providing they have the skills we want. That will include Australian nationals. Please explain why you think this is a lie.

Pretty much everything you have written there is a lie.

Our immigration policy with respect to Australia has nothing to do with our EU membership. Simple as that. If we want more Australians to come we could do that tomorrow.

Thanks for adding another to my list of lies though. The unskilled EU migrants lie.

 

[ceptimus]

We do have unskilled migrants from the EU entering right now. Not a lie.

While we're being flooded with migrants and there aren't enough houses and services for everyone, we have to get tough on immigration that we can control to stem the flood. Not a lie.

We can't stop the EU flood for at least another two years while we're still EU members. Not a lie.

Just because you don't agree with someone, it doesn't mean they're lying. You need to do better than that and actually back up your accusations with facts.

 

[3point14]

Once we've stopped uncontrolled immigration from the EU of unskilled migrants

Can you show that this is desirable? Can you show the negative effects of EU migration?

 

[ceptimus]

Can you show that this is desirable? Can you show the negative effects of EU migration?

Once you accept that there are limits to immigration into what is already a very crowded country (and if you don't accept that then you're an idiot), then it's obviously desirable to select whom you want to allow in and whom you don't.

So the negative effects are that we're very tough on turning away immigrants from India, Australia, and so on in order to try to keep the total immigration numbers managable - and that sometimes means turning down people who would actually benefit the country if they were allowed in.

This isn't rocket science - it's what practically every non-EU country in the world already does.

It's only the EU nonsensical rules that means we have to accept each and every immigrant from any EU country, regardless of whether they have any skills that we need, and even though our country is already more overcrowded than the one they're coming from.

Many other EU countries are becoming wise to this. Watch this year's elections to see how voters in other EU countries feel. How much longer do you think the EU will desperately try to hold onto this failed policy?

 

[Tolls]

Can you show that this is desirable? Can you show the negative effects of EU migration?

We can see the negative effects of not having these people coming in right now. But of course that apparently makes me an idiot.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ur-shortages-brexit-as-eu-worker-numbers-fall

 

[3point14]

Once you accept that there are limits to immigration into what is already a very crowded country (and if you don't accept that then you're an idiot), then it's obviously desirable to select whom you want to allow in and whom you don't.

So the negative effects are that we're very tough on turning away immigrants from India, Australia, and so on in order to try to keep the total immigration numbers managable - and that sometimes means turning down people who would actually benefit the country if they were allowed in.

This isn't rocket science - it's what practically every non-EU country in the world already does.

It's only the EU nonsensical rules that means we have to accept each and every immigrant from any EU country, regardless of whether they have any skills that we need, and even though our country is already more overcrowded than the one they're coming from.

Many other EU countries are becoming wise to this. Watch this year's elections to see how voters in other EU countries feel. How much longer do you think the EU will desperately try to hold onto this failed policy?

That's a really long winded way of saying 'no' isn't it?

Find facts and figures, surveys and studies and show me that what you believe is true. The unsubstantiated waffle above doesn't count as evidence at all, it's your guess, at best, your wishful thinking in all probability.


Now, again, can you demonstrate the negative effects of EU migration?

 

[ceptimus]

That's a really long winded way of saying 'no' isn't it?

Find facts and figures, surveys and studies and show me that what you believe is true. The unsubstantiated waffle above doesn't count as evidence at all, it's your guess, at best, your wishful thinking in all probability.


Now, again, can you demonstrate the negative effects of EU migration?

No. You made the claim. You do the homework. You provide facts and figures that show the benefit of EU migration to the UK and prove that a similar number of migrants from non EU countries (if they were allowed) wouldn't be an even greater economic benefit.

 

[3point14]

No. You made the claim. You do the homework. You provide facts and figures that show the benefit of EU migration to the UK and prove that a similar number of migrants from non EU countries (if they were allowed) wouldn't be an even greater economic benefit.

No. I made no claim. You proposed a course of action that begged a question. I simply highlighted the question begging and am asking you to demonstrate the facts upon which you have based your reasoning.

I can go back and quote the whole conversation, with footnotes and everything if you like?

Your burden to demonstrate.

 

[Tolls]

But...there'll be a lot of really annoyed people if we start letting in just as many people from those other countries as were coming in from the EU.

 

[catsmate]

History trumps geography in politics, and peace is politics by other means. The geography of Ireland hasn't changed since the 1920's and isn't about to. "Peacefully" will be relative.

Here we have a surprise result from the Referendum : the Union flag-waving political contingent that has kept Northern Ireland British against all reason now wants shot of it as a worthless anachronism and impediment to their grand scheme. As someone who grew up with the Troubles I have to say I did not see that coming.

Neither did the Passport Office...

 

[Lothian]

Once you accept that there are limits to immigration into what is already a very crowded country (and if you don't accept that then you're an idiot), then it's obviously desirable to select whom you want to allow in and whom you don't.

I think you are missing the wider point here. Since 1989 the UK population has gone up by about 9 million
In that time the number of people unemployed has gone from over 2 million down to 1.6 million. What that means is that we have been creating more jobs than we have been getting migrants to fill.,

The problem with housing and services is not simply that migrants have come here to work. The problem is that we have created so many jobs that we can not fill from UK citizens that we have needed migration to fill them. Meanwhile we have not invested the extra state revenue from more business and personal taxes into infrastructure. In a global economy where we don't need to be self sufficient in everything this county is not over populated. Drive around for a bit or jump in a plane. Space is not something we are short of.

There is pressure on housing and services and there are two ways to solve it, invest more, build more houses and infrastructure or get rid of UK jobs.

Brexit will lead to the latter, I would prefer the former.

 

[ceptimus]

No. I made no claim. You proposed a course of action that begged a question. I simply highlighted the question begging and am asking you to demonstrate the facts upon which you have based your reasoning.

I can go back and quote the whole conversation, with footnotes and everything if you like?

Your burden to demonstrate.

Nice try, but I'm not going to do your work for you.

We hold these truths to be self evident: Choosing who you allow in has got to be preferable to having to allow in anyone from a specified group of countries. Like I said that's what every non-EU country already does.

If you want to try to prove the absurd claim that the opposite is true that's up to you. Good luck in your attempt but I fear you will be wasting your time.

 

[ceptimus]

Space is not something we are short of.

We've been over this before which led to my including your exasperated response in my signature - even after I gave you the chance to withdraw it you repeated it.

England is already the most densely populated major country in the EU, and, after excluding city states, one of the five most densely populated countries in the world.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We do have unskilled migrants from the EU entering right now. Not a lie.

While we're being flooded with migrants and there aren't enough houses and services for everyone, we have to get tough on immigration that we can control to stem the flood. Not a lie.

We can't stop the EU flood for at least another two years while we're still EU members. Not a lie.

Just because you don't agree with someone, it doesn't mean they're lying. You need to do better than that and actually back up your accusations with facts.

Limits on non EU immigration are not controlled by the EU or anything to do with our EU membership. It's a lie to link the two.

EU immigrants are on average better qualified and higher skilled than the UK population as a whole. It is a lie to suggest that we are being flooded with non skilled EU migrants.

And now the there aren't enough services for everyone lie. I thought you said one at a time? You are lying at an exponential rate now.

 

[Lothian]

We've been over this before which led to my including your exasperated response in my signature - even after I gave you the chance to withdraw it you repeated it.

England is already the most densely populated major country in the EU, and, after excluding city states, one of the five most densely populated countries in the world.

Unless you are planning to put border controls on all of England's borders, including that with Wales and Scotland then as far as this debate is concerned England is a politically meaningless area to choose*.

The population density in my house is over 200 times greater than the UK as a whole. Is my house too densely populated?

Just as my house is not an appropriate measure neither is England when there are no hard borders stopping people crossing into Scotland and Wales.



*Please feel free to update your old 'taken out of context" quote with this new one,

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And none of that guff changes the lie. That Tory non EU immigration policy is determined by our EU membership and will be relaxed after Brexit

 

[ceptimus]

Unless you are planning to put border controls on all of England's borders, including that with Wales and Scotland then as far as this debate is concerned England is a politically meaningless area to choose*.

The population density in my house is over 200 times greater than the UK as a whole. Is my house too densely populated?

Just as my house is not an appropriate measure neither is England when there are no hard borders stopping people crossing into Scotland and Wales.



*Please feel free to update your old 'taken out of context" quote with this new one,

Your house isn't a country. England is.

EU migrants to the UK settle mainly in England, as you well know.

 

[3point14]

Nice try, but I'm not going to do your work for you.

We hold these truths to be self evident: Choosing who you allow in has got to be preferable to having to allow in anyone from a specified group of countries. Like I said that's what every non-EU country already does.

If you want to try to prove the absurd claim that the opposite is true that's up to you. Good luck in your attempt but I fear you will be wasting your time.

Again, I'm sat here surrounded by absolutely no evidence that EU migration is a net negative tithe UK

As your policy proposal is very clearly based on your view that EU migration is a net negative, it's really down to you to show your work and demonstrate how you arrived at that conclusion. Which, I might add, seems to be in opposition to the actual facts.

You can try to waffle your way out of it again if you like, but you really need to show some actual statistics or other evidence to support the contention upon which your policy proposal is based.


I won't hold my breath.

 

[ceptimus]

Again, I'm sat here surrounded by absolutely no evidence that EU migration is a net negative tithe UK.

You're wilfully missing the point. Uncontrolled migration from the EU may be a net benefit to the UK. My argument is that controlled migration from the whole world (including the EU) would obviously result in an even greater benefit.

 

[3point14]

You're wilfully missing the point. Uncontrolled migration from the EU may be a net benefit to the UK. My argument is that controlled migration from the whole world (including the EU) would obviously result in an even greater benefit.

Okay.

Can you demonstrate that?