• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EU migration: UK to face 'free-for-all', Michael Gove warns

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,089
Reaction score
12,490
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
EU migration: UK to face 'free-for-all', Michael Gove warns - EU migration: UK to face 'free-for-all', Michael Gove warns - BBC News

gunner posted this and it needs a response.

Fact: Any deal with the EU by the UK will require freedom of movement of people and goods. Grove fails to mention this, just as most on the leave side does.. why is that? Do you, the people of Britain actually believe that they would get a deal with the EU that allowed them to set quotas on the number of EU migrants???? that is laughable to say the least.

Fact: EU citizens going to the UK, go there for jobs. They do not (for the most part) go there for healthcare or benefits. There is far better healthcare in places like France, Germany and Spain. Benefits are better in Scandinavia.. so it is beyond pathetic that Grove pushes this narrative. What he should be focusing on is why the NHS is under strain... which is lack of investment and poor planning. The EU migrants are in fact paying for large parts of the NHS.. as in the NHS would be in a much bigger hole financially if it was not for the EU migrants. Also EU migrants are mostly young healthy people, so their use of the NHS is relatively minimal compared to local Brits. Why does Grove not mention this.. why is he deceiving the British population? Why is that the leave campaign refuses to admit that up to 1/5 of all NHS staff is... EU citizens. Their only response, yea but the system blocks recruitment from places like India, Pakistan and the Philippines.... wait what? They want to replace Poles, French, Spanish nurses and doctors with people from the Philippines?

Fact: Countries that have applied to join the EU are just that.. applicants. If they can not meet the conditions of membership then they wont get membership. He specifically mentions certain countries, most notably Turkey. The fear of 80 million "Muslims" flooding into Europe is a great motivator.. problem is that is horse****. Turks already have almost free access to Europe. Under 5% of Turks are denied access to Europe on average. Plus the condition that Turkey is in, does not meet the minimum requirements of membership. Its legal system is problematic to say the least, and the political system is borderline non democratic. Turkey will not be let into the EU under the current conditions period. Several countries also have stated they would require a referendum before they would accept Turkey.

So we are back to fearmongering by Grove and the Brexit people.

I saw an interview on the BBC yesterday where a leave campaigner said that there are 300k new people in the UK a year, a city about the size of Newcastle. While technically true, she said it as it was all EU migrants.. It is not. In fact the majority is non-EU migrants, and the actual EU migrant number is about 140k. Funny how that was not caught by the BBC reporter. And what kind of non-EU migrants come to the UK? Oh from India, Pakistan, Nigeria and so on... most of those dont come for jobs, but to join family. They are a far bigger burden on schools and the NHS than EU migrants.. why is no one talking about that? Why is no one talking about stopping the non-EU migration problem? If having a bunch of Poles coming to the UK for work is such a massive strain on the NHS and schools despite most not using these facilities, then why is it not an even bigger problem when a family of 7 comes from Nigeria or India?

The leave campaign has taken massive hits the last few days and this attack by Grove has to be pulled apart by the British media. It is a lame attempt to try to get a campaign back on track by using xenophobia and racism (thanks Boris!) and hiding certain "unwanted facts"....
 

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,875
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
gunner posted this and it needs a response.

Fact: Any deal with the EU by the UK will require freedom of movement of people and goods. Grove fails to mention this, just as most on the leave side does.. why is that? Do you, the people of Britain actually believe that they would get a deal with the EU that allowed them to set quotas on the number of EU migrants???? that is laughable to say the least.

Fact: EU citizens going to the UK, go there for jobs. They do not (for the most part) go there for healthcare or benefits. There is far better healthcare in places like France, Germany and Spain. Benefits are better in Scandinavia.. so it is beyond pathetic that Grove pushes this narrative. What he should be focusing on is why the NHS is under strain... which is lack of investment and poor planning. The EU migrants are in fact paying for large parts of the NHS.. as in the NHS would be in a much bigger hole financially if it was not for the EU migrants. Also EU migrants are mostly young healthy people, so their use of the NHS is relatively minimal compared to local Brits. Why does Grove not mention this.. why is he deceiving the British population? Why is that the leave campaign refuses to admit that up to 1/5 of all NHS staff is... EU citizens. Their only response, yea but the system blocks recruitment from places like India, Pakistan and the Philippines.... wait what? They want to replace Poles, French, Spanish nurses and doctors with people from the Philippines?

Fact: Countries that have applied to join the EU are just that.. applicants. If they can not meet the conditions of membership then they wont get membership. He specifically mentions certain countries, most notably Turkey. The fear of 80 million "Muslims" flooding into Europe is a great motivator.. problem is that is horse****. Turks already have almost free access to Europe. Under 5% of Turks are denied access to Europe on average. Plus the condition that Turkey is in, does not meet the minimum requirements of membership. Its legal system is problematic to say the least, and the political system is borderline non democratic. Turkey will not be let into the EU under the current conditions period. Several countries also have stated they would require a referendum before they would accept Turkey.

So we are back to fearmongering by Grove and the Brexit people.

I saw an interview on the BBC yesterday where a leave campaigner said that there are 300k new people in the UK a year, a city about the size of Newcastle. While technically true, she said it as it was all EU migrants.. It is not. In fact the majority is non-EU migrants, and the actual EU migrant number is about 140k. Funny how that was not caught by the BBC reporter. And what kind of non-EU migrants come to the UK? Oh from India, Pakistan, Nigeria and so on... most of those dont come for jobs, but to join family. They are a far bigger burden on schools and the NHS than EU migrants.. why is no one talking about that? Why is no one talking about stopping the non-EU migration problem? If having a bunch of Poles coming to the UK for work is such a massive strain on the NHS and schools despite most not using these facilities, then why is it not an even bigger problem when a family of 7 comes from Nigeria or India?

The leave campaign has taken massive hits the last few days and this attack by Grove has to be pulled apart by the British media. It is a lame attempt to try to get a campaign back on track by using xenophobia and racism (thanks Boris!) and hiding certain "unwanted facts"....

There's not much I disagree with there Pete. What I would say is there are most definitely certain cases where too many Eastern European migrants have gone to the same area, in a short space of time. It doesn't matter what mistakes the government made, that allowed such things, the people only remember the consequences.

Immigration has become toxic per se. In the eyes of many people we're accepting far more than our services can cope with. Again, the fact you'll make a case for underfunding etc. will not resonate with the population; only we have to many here. Statistical data suggests we have been the fastest growing population in Europe, until very recently. At the end of the day, people feel uncomfortable at the rate of change and Europe is seen for some, as part of the wider narrative of evermore migrants.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
There's not much I disagree with there Pete. What I would say is there are most definitely certain cases where too many Eastern European migrants have gone to the same area, in a short space of time. It doesn't matter what mistakes the government made, that allowed such things, the people only remember the consequences.

Immigration has become toxic per se. In the eyes of many people we're accepting far more than our services can cope with. Again, the fact you'll make a case for underfunding etc. will not resonate with the population; only we have to many here. Statistical data suggests we have been the fastest growing population in Europe, until very recently. At the end of the day, people feel uncomfortable at the rate of change and Europe is seen for some, as part of the wider narrative of evermore migrants.

The main problem with that narrative is that it links immigration with EU membership. As everyone knows, by far the largest source of migrants into the UK is the Indian subcontinent, followed by Africa. Study after study shows that migrants from the EU contribute more to the Exchequer than they consume in public services and assistance. The Brexit campaigners know this too, they just find it politically convenient to link fears of immigration with their campaign.
 

gunner

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
2,875
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The main problem with that narrative is that it links immigration with EU membership. As everyone knows, by far the largest source of migrants into the UK is the Indian subcontinent, followed by Africa. Study after study shows that migrants from the EU contribute more to the Exchequer than they consume in public services and assistance. The Brexit campaigners know this too, they just find it politically convenient to link fears of immigration with their campaign.

I fully appreciate that. But like I said, the public see it as a kick back, all be it with the wrong ball, towards immigration.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,089
Reaction score
12,490
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There's not much I disagree with there Pete. What I would say is there are most definitely certain cases where too many Eastern European migrants have gone to the same area, in a short space of time. It doesn't matter what mistakes the government made, that allowed such things, the people only remember the consequences.

Yes and we have to look why they went to that area. Jobs? Cheap homes? Their "nationality" already part of the area, aka the ghetto issue. And who are they? Poles? Romanians? Or Indian, Pakistani? as in are they EU or non-EU people? More non-EU people have entered the UK than EU people in the last 20 years.

Plus what can the government do? Nothing, unless you want to put in place rules and regulations on where people are allowed to live? Birmingham attracts lots of people from the Indian sub-continent.. and it has created a defacto ghetto here. Start telling them they are not allowed to settle there?

Immigration has become toxic per se. In the eyes of many people we're accepting far more than our services can cope with. Again, the fact you'll make a case for underfunding etc. will not resonate with the population; only we have to many here.

I dont disagree, and that is why the Brexit people are using this crap. It is the typical scapegoat tactic used through out the centuries.. Hitler used it, various English kings and queens used it and so on and so on.

Statistical data suggests we have been the fastest growing population in Europe, until very recently. At the end of the day, people feel uncomfortable at the rate of change and Europe is seen for some, as part of the wider narrative of evermore migrants.

Yes but that growth is due to economic growth... aka jobs. It is not due to the NHS nor schools. A Pole coming to the UK does have his/her children with them and chances are that if they did, they would prefer that those children were educated in Poland. They are also far more healthy and young, so the chances that they use the NHS is small.

What all this boils down to is the ability of the Brexit campaign to manipulate parts of facts and statistics to show a picture that does not exist in reality but certainly exits in the minds of people because of years of false information by the newspapers.

This Grove comment is just one of many that the stay campaign needs to debunk and debunk fast. Maybe they need to start releasing a document with the basic facts on immigration and burden... that alone would shock people as it would show they had been lied to by the Daily Mail and Sun.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I fully appreciate that. But like I said, the public see it as a kick back, all be it with the wrong ball, towards immigration.

Yes, I know, perceptions are all. That's what the Brexiters are depending on. BTW did you hear Farage getting his arse handed to him by Hilary Benn on Any Questions? on Friday? I recommend it.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
gunner posted this and it needs a response.

Fact: Any deal with the EU by the UK will require freedom of movement of people and goods. Grove fails to mention this, just as most on the leave side does.. why is that? Do you, the people of Britain actually believe that they would get a deal with the EU that allowed them to set quotas on the number of EU migrants???? that is laughable to say the least.

Fact: EU citizens going to the UK, go there for jobs. They do not (for the most part) go there for healthcare or benefits. There is far better healthcare in places like France, Germany and Spain. Benefits are better in Scandinavia.. so it is beyond pathetic that Grove pushes this narrative. What he should be focusing on is why the NHS is under strain... which is lack of investment and poor planning. The EU migrants are in fact paying for large parts of the NHS.. as in the NHS would be in a much bigger hole financially if it was not for the EU migrants. Also EU migrants are mostly young healthy people, so their use of the NHS is relatively minimal compared to local Brits. Why does Grove not mention this.. why is he deceiving the British population? Why is that the leave campaign refuses to admit that up to 1/5 of all NHS staff is... EU citizens. Their only response, yea but the system blocks recruitment from places like India, Pakistan and the Philippines.... wait what? They want to replace Poles, French, Spanish nurses and doctors with people from the Philippines?

Fact: Countries that have applied to join the EU are just that.. applicants. If they can not meet the conditions of membership then they wont get membership. He specifically mentions certain countries, most notably Turkey. The fear of 80 million "Muslims" flooding into Europe is a great motivator.. problem is that is horse****. Turks already have almost free access to Europe. Under 5% of Turks are denied access to Europe on average. Plus the condition that Turkey is in, does not meet the minimum requirements of membership. Its legal system is problematic to say the least, and the political system is borderline non democratic. Turkey will not be let into the EU under the current conditions period. Several countries also have stated they would require a referendum before they would accept Turkey.

So we are back to fearmongering by Grove and the Brexit people.

I saw an interview on the BBC yesterday where a leave campaigner said that there are 300k new people in the UK a year, a city about the size of Newcastle. While technically true, she said it as it was all EU migrants.. It is not. In fact the majority is non-EU migrants, and the actual EU migrant number is about 140k. Funny how that was not caught by the BBC reporter. And what kind of non-EU migrants come to the UK? Oh from India, Pakistan, Nigeria and so on... most of those dont come for jobs, but to join family. They are a far bigger burden on schools and the NHS than EU migrants.. why is no one talking about that? Why is no one talking about stopping the non-EU migration problem? If having a bunch of Poles coming to the UK for work is such a massive strain on the NHS and schools despite most not using these facilities, then why is it not an even bigger problem when a family of 7 comes from Nigeria or India?

The leave campaign has taken massive hits the last few days and this attack by Grove has to be pulled apart by the British media. It is a lame attempt to try to get a campaign back on track by using xenophobia and racism (thanks Boris!) and hiding certain "unwanted facts"....

Actually the UK did have a problem with EU citizens' on welfare in an earlier recession. After entrance of the EU to Eastern countries the UK in contrast to countries like Germany immediately allowed immigration into their workforce. A largish number came. When the economy dipped the indigenous workers found themselves faced with severe competition for jobs and the system was filled with many more unemployed than would otherwise have been on dole.

This is the experience of many British and it was painful. For them it was invisible that the economy had done better before the recession and so on. Their take was that earnings climed less fas before and during the period of economic weakness there were fewer jobs and the unemployment office and other social unites were filled with Poles. The social system came under pressure with negative consequences. That there were more nurses, seems less important, when you are the one that is down and out.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,089
Reaction score
12,490
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Actually the UK did have a problem with EU citizens' on welfare in an earlier recession. After entrance of the EU to Eastern countries the UK in contrast to countries like Germany immediately allowed immigration into their workforce. A largish number came. When the economy dipped the indigenous workers found themselves faced with severe competition for jobs and the system was filled with many more unemployed than would otherwise have been on dole.

EU countries have the right to kick out any EU migrant that is on the dole for more than 3 months. That the UK might not have exercised this right, well that is their problem. Regardless the amount of EU citizens on UK welfare like unemployment is small relative to the amount that actually work and certainly relative to the indigenous population and that of non-EU migrants. Of course it depends on what you define as "benefits"...

This is the experience of many British and it was painful. For them it was invisible that the economy had done better before the recession and so on. Their take was that earnings climed less fas before and during the period of economic weakness there were fewer jobs and the unemployment office and other social unites were filled with Poles. The social system came under pressure with negative consequences. That there were more nurses, seems less important, when you are the one that is down and out.

And what is your explanation on the fact that unemployment is low and has been falling despite the supposed surge in EU migration?
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,089
Reaction score
12,490
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yes, I know, perceptions are all. That's what the Brexiters are depending on. BTW did you hear Farage getting his arse handed to him by Hilary Benn on Any Questions? on Friday? I recommend it.

Ohh what channel? not heard of "Any Questions" before?!?
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Yes and we have to look why they went to that area. Jobs? Cheap homes? Their "nationality" already part of the area, aka the ghetto issue.

Good point. What we can conclude is where they're NOT being sent, and that is to the constituencies (electoral districts) represented by members of David Cameron's cabinet. Defence secretary, Michael Fallon has described Britain as being 'swamped by asylum seekers', well the people of Rochdale, Middlesbrough and the like may well feel as if they're being swamped, but the people that Mr Fallon represents in leafy Sevenoaks in Kent certainly don't because they haven't welcomed a single asylum seeker to their town of 70,000 residents. Apparently the areas represented by 16 members of Cameron's cabinet have provided asylum to just 24 refugees between them.

So clearly, when Cameron says Britain needs to welcome more asylum seekers and migrants, he has no intention of ensuring that they are welcomed evenly across the country. But apparently 'we're all in this together'. :roll:
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,089
Reaction score
12,490
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Good point. What we can conclude is where they're NOT being sent, and that is to the constituencies (electoral districts) represented by members of David Cameron's cabinet. Defence secretary, Michael Fallon has described Britain as being 'swamped by asylum seekers', well the people of Rochdale, Middlesbrough and the like may well feel as if they're being swamped, but the people that Mr Fallon represents in leafy Sevenoaks in Kent certainly don't because they haven't welcomed a single asylum seeker to their town of 70,000 residents. Apparently the areas represented by 16 members of Cameron's cabinet have provided asylum to just 24 refugees between them.

So clearly, when Cameron says Britain needs to welcome more asylum seekers and migrants, he has no intention of ensuring that they are welcomed evenly across the country. But apparently 'we're all in this together'. :roll:

No we are not all together, the right wing elite are special and are not "we".. they are themselves and have special rules.. :)

Oh and listened to the EU part of the debate... pissed me off Farage got the last word with the lie that Norway does not contribute to the EU. They do and quite a bit relative to their population.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
No we are not all together, the right wing elite are special and are not "we".. they are themselves and have special rules.. :)

Oh and listened to the EU part of the debate... pissed me off Farage got the last word with the lie that Norway does not contribute to the EU. They do and quite a bit relative to their population.

I thought it was a good debate. Interesting that Farage was not going over very well with the audience in Tunbridge Wells, one of the most affluent and conservative towns in the UK.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
EU countries have the right to kick out any EU migrant that is on the dole for more than 3 months. That the UK might not have exercised this right, well that is their problem. Regardless the amount of EU citizens on UK welfare like unemployment is small relative to the amount that actually work and certainly relative to the indigenous population and that of non-EU migrants. Of course it depends on what you define as "benefits"...


And what is your explanation on the fact that unemployment is low and has been falling despite the supposed surge in EU migration?

- The 13 week rule applies to persons that have worked less than 3 months in the country. as far as I know, the citizens of other EU countries and their family members must be treated as would be local natives. Should you have contradictory information, I would be pleased to read it.
- I am not sure, what you refer to here
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The main problem with that narrative is that it links immigration with EU membership. As everyone knows, by far the largest source of migrants into the UK is the Indian subcontinent, followed by Africa.
Study after study shows that migrants from the EU contribute more to the Exchequer than they consume in public services and assistance.
The Brexit campaigners know this too, they just find it politically convenient to link fears of immigration with their campaign.
But a recent study show that non-EU immigrants are Huge losses for the Exchequer. And that may be low.
And with the prospect of New secondary/re-migration from the M-E thru the EU, it gets worse.
All immigrants are not the same culturally or economically, and the below does not appear to include Crime stats/costs of individual groups. That would be revealing if causing a riot among liberals.

Immigration from outside Europe 'cost £120 billion' - Telegraph
New report shows immigration from outside Europe over the Labour government years cost the public purse billions of pounds, while recent migration from inside Europe generated a £4 billion surplus
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent
05 Nov 2014
Immigrants who came to live in Britain from outside Europe cost the public purse nearly £120 billion over 17 years, a new report has shown.

The major academic study also found, however, that recent immigration from Europe – driven by the surge in arrivals from eastern European – gave the economy a £4.4 billion boost over the same period. Experts from University College London also said native Britons made a negative contribution of £591 billion over the 17 years – because of the country’s massive deficit.

The report analysed figures from 1995 to 2011, during most of which the Labour government was pursuing vigorously pro-immigration policies.

It found that migrants from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) made a Negative contribution to the public purse of £117.9 billion because they consumed more in public expenditure – including NHS costs, welfare hand-outs and education – than they contributed in taxes.
[......]
The authors – whose research has previously been criticised by the right of centre think-tank Civitas and by MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tighter immigration laws – emphasised their findings on the contribution of European migrants and gave less prominence to the findings on the costs of non-EEA immigration.
[......]
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch, said the report confirmed the HUGE cost of immigration.
"As for recent European migrants, even on the authors' own figures - which we dispute - their contribution to the Exchequer amounts to less than £1 a week per head of population," he said.

David Green, director of Civitas, said the new report suffered from a “shallow focus” which “misses out some vital costs”. Between 1995 and 2011 the foreign-born population in the UK doubled from 3.5 million to about 7 million.
The non-EEA population grew from 2.8 million to 4.6 million during the period. Of those, in 2011, just over 2 million were not working, either because they were unemployed or for other reasons such as retirement or childcare.
[......]
Meanwhile a separate study published by the Office for National Statistics exposed the full extent of language ghettoes in this country. New analysis of the 2011 Census showed that around 90% of elderly Bangladeshi-born women living in the UK cannot speak English. And almost 4 in 10 Chinese-born migrants who settled in the UK more than 30 years ago had no English.
[......]​
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,835
Reaction score
8,778
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
~ Grove has to be pulled apart by the British media. ~

Never going to happen. You remember how he slipped in the quote that the EU sets UK taxes? Nothing heard about it since.
 
Top Bottom