Brexit negotiations

[Mr D]

People don't generally stick money in their sock draw though, inflation ruins them.

Already said twice now I think, they'll spend much less here than someone from the UK. The money sent out of the country is clearly bad for the UK economy as I just said.

I expect they cost on average more than the 1200 that they pay in tax. If they're paying tax (and living here full time) then they'll have kids and probably retire here too, so there's your net loss.

Surely you understand that a polish worker sending 2/3rds of their salary back to their family in Poland rather than spending all of it in the UK is bad for the economy right?

But why would they spend much less here than the natives?
What are they not buying that natives with the same wage would buy?

OK let me make it easy for you. I decide to send some money to my poor cousins in the US.
I've been paid cash so I go to a place doing international payments. I hand over say £100 to send to the poor relatives.
The international payment place does not courier my £100 cash over to Alaska. Where does that £100 reside physically?
The American cousins get a bunch of dollars that presumably haven't travelled from England.
You see the circulation?

You are again adding more to what people do - kids and retire when there isn't enough data to go on.
The kids - presuming the parents have them - what are the kids costing over time compared to what they add to the state? First couple of years probably nothing added to the state, over time more added to the state and when left school then presumably yet more added to the state.

You cannot both charge the parents for the kids they have here and also claim the cost of natives are less than the state spends on them - those kids are natives.

As for your Polish workers sending 2/3rds of his salary back home, great. Must be equally as cheap for the natives to live in this country too - all that disposable income they can choose to spend or save. And here there are people worried about people saving for retirement! Obviously they need to speak to the people able to live on 1/3rd of their income.

 

[dan19900]

But why would they spend much less here than the natives?
What are they not buying that natives with the same wage would buy?

OK let me make it easy for you. I decide to send some money to my poor cousins in the US.
I've been paid cash so I go to a place doing international payments. I hand over say £100 to send to the poor relatives.
The international payment place does not courier my £100 cash over to Alaska. Where does that £100 reside physically?
The American cousins get a bunch of dollars that presumably haven't travelled from England.
You see the circulation?

You are again adding more to what people do - kids and retire when there isn't enough data to go on.
The kids - presuming the parents have them - what are the kids costing over time compared to what they add to the state? First couple of years probably nothing added to the state, over time more added to the state and when left school then presumably yet more added to the state.

You cannot both charge the parents for the kids they have here and also claim the cost of natives are less than the state spends on them - those kids are natives.

As for your Polish workers sending 2/3rds of his salary back home, great. Must be equally as cheap for the natives to live in this country too - all that disposable income they can choose to spend or save. And here there are people worried about people saving for retirement! Obviously they need to speak to the people able to live on 1/3rd of their income.

They'd spend much less on luxuries, they'd share a flat between a few of them and eat cheap food. It makes more sense to send money to their family or save it for when they go back when you know your money goes further in your home country.

They withdraw the money from the bank immediately, buy food and benefit the other countries economy.

I wasn't charging the parents and kids, I was referring to them being fairly likely to remain in the UK if they have kids here and that if you're saying the parents live here full time (so that they pay any tax) then there's a decent chance they'll have kids.

Addressed this i my first point. Like I've said I live in the Philippines which admittedly is much poorer than Poland etc but it's shown me how little it's possible to live on. People can live on $10 per day here and the things they're buying aren't really any cheaper than in the UK. No rent, they live with family, rice is more expensive in the Philippines than in the UK, electric more expensive. If working abroad then they'd be happy to share a flat with a few people.

Ofcourse it's different living on 1/3rd of your income when you know it's temporary and that you'll return home to family than if you know you have to do it forever but yeah it's possible.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

35 hours per week at minimum wage is about £14,305. That is £491 income tax and £701 employee's NI. You may think they get free accommodation, but it is not something I have ever heard of happening. They are often given appalling basic accommodation for which the maximum possible is deducted from their minimum wage. If they don't have accommodation provided, they have to pay for it. Then they have to pay council tax. Whatever they buy they pay the same VAT as us. So even on the most basic wages they have a tax burden. As many of them are young, single and without children they don't use education, they don't use as much healthcare as the average British person (they use the same amount as the average young, single, British person without children), they don't claim satte benefits, they don't claim satte pensions.

This.

I'm amazed there's even a debate about this. Pretty much any fit, young, healthy person in full work is a net contributor to society. A chunk of their taxed income will inevitably be going to support costs for Brits who need it.

Such people are incredibly important to our country as the population ages. For example, state pension spending in 2018-19 is forecast to be £96.6 billion. Sickness and disability spending is £43 billion. Education is £40 billion. Health spending on the elderly is tens of billions more.

This is not just a UK problem. Japan, for example, has one of the largest retired populations on earth, and one of the lowest birth rates. This means the percentage of the population that works and contributes to taxes is shrinking every year. They need tens of millions of younger immigrants, otherwise they're going to have bigger economic problems over the coming decades.

It's called the dependency ratio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_ratio

What a lot of anti-immigration people don't seem to realise is that if we drastically cut immigration levels (even still allowing "skilled" workers only) the average government spending per head of the UK population is going to go up, and up, and up, while government income comes down due to the labour workforce supply not being able to meet economic demand.

 

[Mr D]

They'd spend much less on luxuries, they'd share a flat between a few of them and eat cheap food. It makes more sense to send money to their family or save it for when they go back when you know your money goes further in your home country.

They withdraw the money from the bank immediately, buy food and benefit the other countries economy.

I wasn't charging the parents and kids, I was referring to them being fairly likely to remain in the UK if they have kids here and that if you're saying the parents live here full time (so that they pay any tax) then there's a decent chance they'll have kids.

Addressed this i my first point. Like I've said I live in the Philippines which admittedly is much poorer than Poland etc but it's shown me how little it's possible to live on. People can live on $10 per day here and the things they're buying aren't really any cheaper than in the UK. No rent, they live with family, rice is more expensive in the Philippines than in the UK, electric more expensive. If working abroad then they'd be happy to share a flat with a few people.

Ofcourse it's different living on 1/3rd of your income when you know it's temporary and that you'll return home to family than if you know you have to do it forever but yeah it's possible.

If the migrants can do all that then so can the natives. What is the difference? If one group can forego luxuries then so can the other. Major chunk of pension problem you have solved there.

The cash sent - the physical notes will go where?

 

[Mr D]

This.

I'm amazed there's even a debate about this. Pretty much any fit, young, healthy person in full work is a net contributor to society. A chunk of their taxed income will inevitably be going to support costs for Brits who need it.

Such people are incredibly important to our country as the population ages. For example, state pension spending in 2018-19 is forecast to be £96.6 billion. Sickness and disability spending is £43 billion. Education is £40 billion. Health spending on the elderly is tens of billions more.

This is not just a UK problem. Japan, for example, has one of the largest retired populations on earth, and one of the lowest birth rates. This means the percentage of the population that works and contributes to taxes is shrinking every year. They need tens of millions of younger immigrants, otherwise they're going to have bigger economic problems over the coming decades.

It's called the dependency ratio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_ratio

What a lot of anti-immigration people don't seem to realise is that if we drastically cut immigration levels (even still allowing "skilled" workers only) the average government spending per head of the UK population is going to go up, and up, and up, while government income comes down due to the labour workforce supply not being able to meet economic demand.

And with a birthrate of 1.7 we aren't even replacing those who die. Its a major problem in many developed nations, that figure by the way is only as high as it is because of immigrants having kids.
Otherwise it would be lower.

One member has stated that the population in Britain is too high but has not mentioned what the target population should be or how it should be maintained. Need birthrate well above 2.0 to maintain population level from births, what with those who die before having kids and those who do not or cannot have kids. Plus all the males who do not give birth.

 

[dan19900]

Ofcourse they can, I'm just not sure they'd like the lifestyle. Here's the formula for them if you want to pass it on:
Find a minimum wage job in the north so you have cheap accommodation costs, share a flat with 4 other people so you pay 1/5th of the rent and bills, should be around 150 per month.
Eat rice and a tiny bit of meat 3 times a day, should be around 50 per month.
Walk to work.
You still have 200 per month left for luxuries.

I don't know, I'm not a banker. I imagine they can't use money if they've just sent it elsewhere though, probably have less cash so they can't give out as much in mortgages etc.

 

[dan19900]

And with a birthrate of 1.7 we aren't even replacing those who die. Its a major problem in many developed nations, that figure by the way is only as high as it is because of immigrants having kids.
Otherwise it would be lower.

One member has stated that the population in Britain is too high but has not mentioned what the target population should be or how it should be maintained. Need birthrate well above 2.0 to maintain population level from births, what with those who die before having kids and those who do not or cannot have kids. Plus all the males who do not give birth.

It's 1.76, I imagine the figures already take account of people who don't have kids, need a birth rate of 2-2.1 to maintain the population. Birth rate was roughly the same 40 years ago and the UK population has gone up by about 20% in that time. For some of that time we even had negative net migration rate so it looks like we can reduce the net migration from the current 300k per year.

Here's the graph for you, looks like the average net migration rate over the last 40 years is less than 100k per year and in that time our population has managed to go up nearly 20% despite an average birth rate of around 1.8.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

It's 1.76, I imagine the figures already take account of people who don't have kids, need a birth rate of 2-2.1 to maintain the population. Birth rate was roughly the same 40 years ago and the UK population has gone up by about 20% in that time. For some of that time we even had negative net migration rate so it looks like we can reduce the net migration from the current 300k per year.

Maintaining the population isn't enough. It needs to get bigger.

To deal with the way the population is changing, we either need to:

1). Bring more workers in
2). Boost the birth rate
3). Replace more workers with robots and automation to increase productivity with fewer people
4). Considerably increase the retirement age

You say we can apparently reduce the net migration rate, but unemployment is already at 4%. This is right on the edge of what most economists recommend before limitations in the available labour workforce start to slow economic growth.

 

[dan19900]

Maintaining the population isn't enough. It needs to get bigger.

To deal with the way the population is changing, we either need to:

1). Bring more workers in
2). Boost the birth rate
3). Replace more workers with robots and automation to increase productivity with fewer people
4). Considerably increase the retirement age

You say we can apparently reduce the net migration rate, but unemployment is already at 4%. This is right on the edge of what most economists recommend before limitations in the available labour workforce start to slow economic growth.

Well number 3 is almost a certainty. Have to just increase the retirement age in line with life expectancy if that's not enough.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Well number 3 is almost a certainty. Have to just increase the retirement age in line with life expectancy if that's not enough.

Increasing the retirement age will only work to a point. Life expectancy may increase, but it doesn't mean that the amount of time the person is fit for sufficiently productive work will increase along with it.

I also highly doubt that most older folk in this country would rather work until they're 75 if it keeps immigration levels down.

As for birth rate, the only way to increase that is by making children within working families easier to raise, but that involves subsidies and welfare that costs money.

Automation will help, but that removes jobs, and major progress on that front is many decades away in our primarily service-based economy.

Like it or not, the easiest, most efficient and most beneficial way to avoid a dependency ratio crisis is to have a plentiful supply of people coming into the country who are able to work. Not just skilled jobs, but all jobs. Particularly if they're physical, as the peak productivity window for those is very narrow (around 18-40).

Trying to drastically reduce this immigration just for more appealing numbers is going to backfire heavily on pretty much every British citizen in the long run.

 

[Inva]

I grew up and became an adult as an immigrant, then got back to my country in my late 20's. Therefore i can talk from both perspectives. I find that most people discussing immigration have not been an immigrant themselves so basically they got no clue what they're talking about.

On the whole, large scale immigration has a deeply negative impact for most involved. And let's not forget that generally, outside of war basically, the people who immigrate are either highly skilled or not skilled at all (so those who couldn't make it even in their own country - these are the vast majority).

1) The host country loses in terms of social structure. Immigrants come from a variety of cultures, oftentimes bringing negative behaviour in society, depending where they come from. It also loses in terms of money through remittances that immigrants may send back home. Often it is said that immigrants do low level jobs that locals won't do. This is largely the case, but there are still some locals who do these jobs. Uncontrolled immigration puts these people out of work. Furthermore the immigrants will continue to work for little pay so you end up with a lot of people (local and foreign) on low salaries.

2) The origin country loses because people who leave represent a reduced market size. Foreign investments in this country lose incentive. People remaining in the country may think of immigration as a solution to their life, therefore not really trying to prosper but simply staying afloat until the opportunity comes up to leave. Some of those who leave young may have ended up being useful to society in one way or another, but now they won't. Also this country probably has already spent money educating these people so that's also a clear loss right there.

3) The people themselves who immigrate may gain only slightly Some will make it and will feel right at home, may even make money etc. But most will be stuck on their low skilled, low paid jobs in a foreign country where they will probably feel unwanted, without friends or relatives, and will be miserable. They will just make do economically on a monthly basis. Their children may fare a bit better but still it's unlikely to have big improvements from one generation to the other.

4) The social security system benefits slightly, especially in the case of immigrants past a certain age, who will have difficulty earning a pension.

5) Businesses who need a lot of cheap manual labour win, as these make big profits by employing immigrants who are willing to work for bare minimum or even less. Another group are those who let apartments as immigrants have nowhere to live. This of course increases rent cost for everyone else including locals.

6) And now the biggest winner: leftist political parties win because sure as hell immigrants and their children will not vote for those who didn't want them, but for the ones who "welcomed them with open arms". First generation immigrants may not get the right to vote, but down the road, children born in the country will. Of course they're not gonna vote for the ones who "hated their family" and made them feel unwanted.

And that's what it all boils down to: Good old fashioned electoral fraud!

 

[Mr D]

Increasing the retirement age will only work to a point. Life expectancy may increase, but it doesn't mean that the amount of time the person is fit for sufficiently productive work will increase along with it.

I also highly doubt that most older folk in this country would rather work until they're 75 if it keeps immigration levels down.

As for birth rate, the only way to increase that is by making children within working families easier to raise, but that involves subsidies and welfare that costs money.

Automation will help, but that removes jobs, and major progress on that front is many decades away in our primarily service-based economy.

Like it or not, the easiest, most efficient and most beneficial way to avoid a dependency ratio crisis is to have a plentiful supply of people coming into the country who are able to work. Not just skilled jobs, but all jobs. Particularly if they're physical, as the peak productivity window for those is very narrow (around 18-40).

Trying to drastically reduce this immigration just for more appealing numbers is going to backfire heavily on pretty much every British citizen in the long run.

With older folks there's also the expected old age and health problems - plus may well want to not work until they drop.
A situation some of our parents and grandparents didn't have a choice in back in the early years of state retirement age.

The big driver I've seen for automation is wages. Make it cheaper to use a machine than a human and the human can get dropped. Self service checkout at the supermarket, one member of staff for say a dozen machines? Or how about Jack's - the new Tesco cut price store. Use an app to shop with? Or amazon with its trying out of a method of buying in store in their new shop?

 

[Mr D]

It's 1.76, I imagine the figures already take account of people who don't have kids, need a birth rate of 2-2.1 to maintain the population. Birth rate was roughly the same 40 years ago and the UK population has gone up by about 20% in that time. For some of that time we even had negative net migration rate so it looks like we can reduce the net migration from the current 300k per year.

Here's the graph for you, looks like the average net migration rate over the last 40 years is less than 100k per year and in that time our population has managed to go up nearly 20% despite an average birth rate of around 1.8.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

Maintaining the population of parents? Need above 2 due to some kids dying. Yes it happens.
So how your figures compensate for those who don't have kids at all by choice or cannot have them?

 

[dan19900]

Maintaining the population of parents? Need above 2 due to some kids dying. Yes it happens.
So how your figures compensate for those who don't have kids at all by choice or cannot have them?

I said 2.0-2.1, that is over 2. People choosing to not have kids will already be factored into the 1.76 average. It also already compensates for kids dying.
I just showed you that with an average net migration of less than 100k per year our population has grown by nearly 20% over the last 40 years anyway so it sounds like less than 100k is sufficient.

 

[The Byre]

You may think they get free accommodation, but it is not something I have ever heard of happening. They are often given appalling basic accommodation for which the maximum possible is deducted from their minimum wage. If they don't have accommodation provided, they have to pay for it. Then they have to pay council tax.

1. You must pay at least minimum wage - most farmers have to pay much more!
2. You may not charge more than £8 a day (if I remember rightly!) for full board, regardless of quality and scope of the accommodation and food.
3. I am not aware of any migrant workers paying council tax, as their accommodation has the same status as a B&B. It's not as if each worker gets their own little house!

 

[Newchodge]

2. You may not charge more than £8 a day (if I remember rightly!) for full board, regardless of quality and scope of the accommodation and food.

You can deduct about £6 per day for accommodation. If you are paying minimum wage you cannot deduct more than that and you cannot demand that employees pay for food, whether you supply it or not.

 

[Mr D]

I said 2.0-2.1, that is over 2. People choosing to not have kids will already be factored into the 1.76 average. It also already compensates for kids dying.
I just showed you that with an average net migration of less than 100k per year our population has grown by nearly 20% over the last 40 years anyway so it sounds like less than 100k is sufficient.

Yes I know people not having kids is factored into the current birthrate. And the 1.76 won't account for kids dying as they will do that post birth.
You aren't factoring that into the figure for required birthrate to maintain population though.
If you don't want immigration you need higher number of births. Despite what people want, can afford or are capable of.

 

[Jasondb]

I grew up and became an adult as an immigrant, then got back to my country in my late 20's. Therefore i can talk from both perspectives. I find that most people discussing immigration have not been an immigrant themselves so basically they got no clue what they're talking about.

On the whole, large scale immigration has a deeply negative impact for most involved. And let's not forget that generally, outside of war basically, the people who immigrate are either highly skilled or not skilled at all (so those who couldn't make it even in their own country - these are the vast majority).

1) The host country loses in terms of social structure. Immigrants come from a variety of cultures, oftentimes bringing negative behaviour in society, depending where they come from. It also loses in terms of money through remittances that immigrants may send back home. Often it is said that immigrants do low level jobs that locals won't do. This is largely the case, but there are still some locals who do these jobs. Uncontrolled immigration puts these people out of work. Furthermore the immigrants will continue to work for little pay so you end up with a lot of people (local and foreign) on low salaries.

2) The origin country loses because people who leave represent a reduced market size. Foreign investments in this country lose incentive. People remaining in the country may think of immigration as a solution to their life, therefore not really trying to prosper but simply staying afloat until the opportunity comes up to leave. Some of those who leave young may have ended up being useful to society in one way or another, but now they won't. Also this country probably has already spent money educating these people so that's also a clear loss right there.

3) The people themselves who immigrate may gain only slightly Some will make it and will feel right at home, may even make money etc. But most will be stuck on their low skilled, low paid jobs in a foreign country where they will probably feel unwanted, without friends or relatives, and will be miserable. They will just make do economically on a monthly basis. Their children may fare a bit better but still it's unlikely to have big improvements from one generation to the other.

4) The social security system benefits slightly, especially in the case of immigrants past a certain age, who will have difficulty earning a pension.

5) Businesses who need a lot of cheap manual labour win, as these make big profits by employing immigrants who are willing to work for bare minimum or even less. Another group are those who let apartments as immigrants have nowhere to live. This of course increases rent cost for everyone else including locals.

6) And now the biggest winner: leftist political parties win because sure as hell immigrants and their children will not vote for those who didn't want them, but for the ones who "welcomed them with open arms". First generation immigrants may not get the right to vote, but down the road, children born in the country will. Of course they're not gonna vote for the ones who "hated their family" and made them feel unwanted.

And that's what it all boils down to: Good old fashioned electoral fraud!

I agree with most of that, well said.

 

[dan19900]

Yes I know people not having kids is factored into the current birthrate. And the 1.76 won't account for kids dying as they will do that post birth.
You aren't factoring that into the figure for required birthrate to maintain population though.
If you don't want immigration you need higher number of births. Despite what people want, can afford or are capable of.

Yeah that's why the figure is 2.1 and not just 2, not many kids die in the UK so it doesn't need to be much above 2.
Well as I said a net migration of 100,000 will be more than enough but that's not the only option. Either machines can help to sort the problem or raise the retirement age as people live longer. People can't all expect to get a state pension before 70 if the average life expectancy goes up to 100.

 

[Mr D]

Yeah that's why the figure is 2.1 and not just 2, not many kids die in the UK so it doesn't need to be much above 2.
Well as I said a net migration of 100,000 will be more than enough but that's not the only option. Either machines can help to sort the problem or raise the retirement age as people live longer. People can't all expect to get a state pension before 70 if the average life expectancy goes up to 100.

And you are giving too low a figure still. 2.1 - how many under 16s die without offspring? How many people cannot or choose not to have kids?

And people can expect to get a state pension when they are old - they don't keep young just because life expectancy goes up.

 

[NickGrogan]

Maintaining the population isn't enough. It needs to get bigger.

Why and what is the upper limit for UK Population?

100 Million people, 200 Million, 1 Billion???

Clearly the population can't go up for ever, so when is it big enough?

From a sustainability point of view a reduction in population would actually be a good thing.

Immigration is great for solving our ageing population problem and for filling low skilled / low salary jobs too. Immigrants can be highly skilled and very good for our economy, but no one who is promoting this mass immigration seems to be considering the effect on the countries that these people are leaving.

If the all the smartest people leave a country what is the affect on the economy?
If all the young fit people leave a country what is the affect on the economy?

Or do those countries not matter as long as our fruit is picked and our old people paid for?

 

[dan19900]

And you are giving too low a figure still. 2.1 - how many under 16s die without offspring? How many people cannot or choose not to have kids?

And people can expect to get a state pension when they are old - they don't keep young just because life expectancy goes up.

The people not having kids are already factored into the 2.1 calculation, if some don't have kids then others have have to have more. That's how averages work. This is already calculated into our current birth rate of 1.76, not like we're hugely below the figure needed to maintain population.
here it says 2.1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/

Well it's not going to be practical is it, unless machines etc change the way the economy works a lot. What if the life expectancy goes up to 150, people still get pension below 70?
People can still retire before that if they like, just need to be responsibly with their money. I'm pretty much retired at 28, no state pension yet though.

 

[Mr D]

The people not having kids are already factored into the 2.1 calculation, if some don't have kids then others have have to have more. That's how averages work. This is already calculated into our current birth rate of 1.76, not like we're hugely below the figure needed to maintain population.
here it says 2.1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/

Well it's not going to be practical is it, unless machines etc change the way the economy works a lot. What if the life expectancy goes up to 150, people still get pension below 70?
People can still retire before that if they like, just need to be responsibly with their money. I'm pretty much retired at 28, no state pension yet though.

How the heck are you factoring in all those people not having kids into 2.1 calculation?

Two people to make a child (except clones). So to simply replace themselves alone requires 2 babies.

Yes when some cannot or choose not to have kids then others must have more in order to maintain population. Or you have a shrinking population that you must deal with - immigration being the current popular way.

And I've never disagreed that the figures are included in the 1.76. I'm saying you aren't including the figures in your 2.1.

 

[dan19900]

1.76 is the UKs 'replacement fertility rate', it only needs to be 2.1 to maintain population, it says on the link I just sent you.
Replacement level fertility and future population growth. ... PIP: Replacement level fertility is the level of fertility at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the next. In developed countries, replacement level fertilitycan be taken as requiring an average of 2.1 children per woman.

Our population has been going up about 400,000 per year over the last 10 years whilst net immigration has been about 250,000 per year so clearly it doesn't need to be so high.
I expect our birth rate will go up when all of the second generation immigrants from the last 10 years start having kids aswell.

 

[Mr D]

1.76 is the UKs 'replacement fertility rate', it only needs to be 2.1 to maintain population, it says on the link I just sent you.
Replacement level fertility and future population growth. ... PIP: Replacement level fertility is the level of fertility at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the next. In developed countries, replacement level fertilitycan be taken as requiring an average of 2.1 children per woman.

Our population has been going up about 400,000 per year over the last 10 years whilst net immigration has been about 250,000 per year so clearly it doesn't need to be so high.
I expect our birth rate will go up when all of the second generation immigrants from the last 10 years start having kids aswell.

And I'm saying 2.1 is not enough.

Look, how many men will give birth? Usually number will be zero yes? So women giving birth have to both replace themselves and replace a male. There's 2.0 to start off with. Agreed?
Anything less than 2.0 is not replacing the males and females who are involved in the birth.

Add in the children who die between birth and growing up enough to have offspring. Add in those who choose not to or cannot have children. You are saying that 0.1 covers those.

Our population is increasing that we can agree on. You are then for some reason looking at NET immigration.
Your idea about the birth rate going up when 2nd generation immigrants start having kids - is that borne out by the 2nd generation immigrants started having kids in the past several decades? Is it borne out by the current 2nd generation immigrants having kids currently?

 

[The Byre]

Seldom in the history of the Interweb, has a thread disintegrated so completely into a stream of pointless and totally circular nonsense as this one.

When we remember that that you are all arguing over something that is not going to happen, do we realise just how pointless this constant obsession with trying to play hokey-cokey with the EU really is!

 

[Mr D]

Seldom in the history of the Interweb, has a thread disintegrated so completely into a stream of pointless and totally circular nonsense as this one.

When we remember that that you are all arguing over something that is not going to happen, do we realise just how pointless this constant obsession with trying to play hokey-cokey with the EU really is!

But the hokey-cokey is a great teaching tool, explaining to children that these movements are what its all about.

 

[KM-Tiger]

When we remember that that you are all arguing over something that is not going to happen

Oh it will happen, though right now the risk is that it will be Brexit in name only, rather than a proper Brexit. Though I would predict civil unrest if the Chequers plan is somehow forced through.

It isn't about economics, trade, immigration or borders. It's about self government and the ability to hold politicians to account at the ballot box. That matters.

 

[Newchodge]

Oh it will happen, though right now the risk is that it will be Brexit in name only, rather than a proper Brexit. Though I would predict civil unrest if the Chequers plan is somehow forced through.

It isn't about economics, trade, immigration or borders. It's about self government and the ability to hold politicians to account at the ballot box. That matters.

If that is what it is about then the politicians should be deciding how to vote based on our constitution, which means they vote based on their assessment of the best interests of their constituents. Civil unrest if that happens seems to mean that people did not actually want self government!

 

[The Byre]

Brexit in name only = no Brexit!

Holding politicians to account? You can't hold an idiot to account for his idiocy. That's like trying to teach wisdom and good judgement to a pig.

 

[dan19900]

And I'm saying 2.1 is not enough.

Look, how many men will give birth? Usually number will be zero yes? So women giving birth have to both replace themselves and replace a male. There's 2.0 to start off with. Agreed?
Anything less than 2.0 is not replacing the males and females who are involved in the birth.

Add in the children who die between birth and growing up enough to have offspring. Add in those who choose not to or cannot have children. You are saying that 0.1 covers those.

Our population is increasing that we can agree on. You are then for some reason looking at NET immigration.
Your idea about the birth rate going up when 2nd generation immigrants start having kids - is that borne out by the 2nd generation immigrants started having kids in the past several decades? Is it borne out by the current 2nd generation immigrants having kids currently?

Yes 0.1 covers those in the UK, not many kids die in the UK. Also says so in the study that I sent you.

Yes net immigration, our net immigration over the last 10 years has been around 250k per year on average but our population looks to of gone up around 400k per year, therefore we can reduce immigration and still have the population increase.

Yes it's from the fact that immigrants are known to have more kids on average, there's been more immigrants come to the UK in the last 10 years than ever before so there's also more 2nd generation kids here than ever before.

 

[Cobby]

Yeah but when evaluating anecdotal evidence I tend to value my own experience and my friends experiences than some random of twitter.

Of course you do, but from the perspective of those two posts, one contains a lot of information for consideration and the other says nothing more than "it was simple". Quality of information is important, especially when considering anecdotal evidence.

So you think that EU migrants working in the UK on minimum wage with their family living in the EU and UK citizens working on minimum wage in the UK with their family in the UK would both send an equal amount of money out of the country? As your link says there's no stats for it but surely you can use common sense for something like that no?

What are you talking about? I was pointing out there is no accurate evidence available for the thing you keep insisting is rampant.

If you're genuinely trying to appeal to common sense on this issue, then consider those people that do the charity sweet boxes. You put in a pound and get a bag of sweets. 25-50% of that pound goes to charity. The person running the box earns a living and employs others. The charity earns additional money.

Your common sense argument about remittances is similar to those that demand the full 100% of that pound should go to charity. It's a simplistic view because then that person cannot afford to run the business and the charity gets 100% of no money at all. Money leaving the country doesn't benefit the country directly (although even the act of moving the money generates economic activity in fees), but if that's the cost of an overall benefit then rationally speaking do you not think it's worth it?

 

[Cobby]

Oh it will happen, though right now the risk is that it will be Brexit in name only, rather than a proper Brexit. Though I would predict civil unrest if the Chequers plan is somehow forced through.

Risk? You clearly have very little at risk to want the No Deal cliff edge so badly. The risk is that Brexit, in any form will harm the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, with the potential harm increasing in probability in direct proportion to how isolated we make ourselves.

The risk is to the UK, to its citizens. If you think the risk is in not getting a complete No Deal Brexit, then perhaps you can answer the question that the other chap couldn't earlier in the thread:
How will Brexit help the poorest and most vulnerable in our society?

As for the civil unrest, well, we know from experience that the right-wing, older generation (the ones that powered the Leave vote) have very little interest in active campaigning and protest, historically relying upon their sense of entitlement and privilege to execute their desires. I predict no civil unrest - just the same tired, hateful, nationalist rhetoric we've had from them for the past couple of decades. And of course, were any violence to occur (as Farage seems to be trying to stir up), I'm sure you'd join the rest of decent, law-abiding society by condemning it and backing our police force in their arrests and prosecutions...

It isn't about economics, trade, immigration or borders. It's about self government and the ability to hold politicians to account at the ballot box. That matters.

According to Vote Leave it was about all of those things and the leading Brexiteers still argue on all of those points. Ironically we already have self government if not - thanks to FPTP - an ability to hold politicians to account.

 

[dan19900]

Of course you do, but from the perspective of those two posts, one contains a lot of information for consideration and the other says nothing more than "it was simple". Quality of information is important, especially when considering anecdotal evidence.



What are you talking about? I was pointing out there is no accurate evidence available for the thing you keep insisting is rampant.

If you're genuinely trying to appeal to common sense on this issue, then consider those people that do the charity sweet boxes. You put in a pound and get a bag of sweets. 25-50% of that pound goes to charity. The person running the box earns a living and employs others. The charity earns additional money.

Your common sense argument about remittances is similar to those that demand the full 100% of that pound should go to charity. It's a simplistic view because then that person cannot afford to run the business and the charity gets 100% of no money at all. Money leaving the country doesn't benefit the country directly (although even the act of moving the money generates economic activity in fees), but if that's the cost of an overall benefit then rationally speaking do you not think it's worth it?

Yeah but I wasn't really setting out to prove to you that the immigrant process was simple, just telling you why I don't think it's that difficult. To be honest though that woman on Twitter seemed really whiny, moaning about everything. I don't tend to value anecdotal evidence from people like that either anyway.

Whether it benefits the country overall is up for debate, I didn't say that immigration is bad because more money leaves the country, just that it's one of many factors that should be taken into account.
Pretty clear to me that immigrants send more money out of the country than natives but I can't be bothered discussing it anymore.

 

[Cobby]

Yeah but I wasn't really setting out to prove to you that the immigrant process was simple, just telling you why I don't think it's that difficult. To be honest though that woman on Twitter seemed really whiny, moaning about everything. I don't tend to value anecdotal evidence from people like that either anyway.

You said we could throw money at "the system" to sort it out and I was simply pointing out it's not that straightforward as the bureaucracy we have is quite inefficient and won't magically get more efficient after Brexit when it gets bigger.

Her "whining", as you put it, seemed like pretty reasonable complaints given the circumstances and the lack of flexibility in treating applicants as people. Also, you didn't say anything about why you don't think the visa system is difficult beyond "I did it, it was simple." That's barely an anecdote let alone an argument.

Whether it benefits the country overall is up for debate, I didn't say that immigration is bad because more money leaves the country, just that it's one of many factors that should be taken into account.

Taken into account for...? Because your argument seems very strongly to be that immigration is bad.

 

[Newchodge]

Also, you didn't say anything about why you don't think the visa system is difficult beyond "I did it, it was simple." That's barely an anecdote let alone an argument.

also, given the OP lives in the Philippines, where did he get a visa for?

 

[dan19900]

You said we could throw money at "the system" to sort it out and I was simply pointing out it's not that straightforward as the bureaucracy we have is quite inefficient and won't magically get more efficient after Brexit when it gets bigger.

Her "whining", as you put it, seemed like pretty reasonable complaints given the circumstances and the lack of flexibility in treating applicants as people. Also, you didn't say anything about why you don't think the visa system is difficult beyond "I did it, it was simple." That's barely an anecdote let alone an argument.



Taken into account for...? Because your argument seems very strongly to be that immigration is bad.

It's anecdotal evidence for me, not you. There's not much in point in me listing the simple process, like I said I'm not here to convince you if it was simple or not.

Yes I think high rates of immigration are bad but for many more reasons than just them sending more money out of the country.

also, given the OP lives in the Philippines, where did he get a visa for?

In the Philippines but British.

 

[James Eaton]

176 pages... I have a lot to read through to catch up. Might about manage it by the time we are out!

 

[Cobby]

It's anecdotal evidence for me, not you. There's not much in point in me listing the simple process, like I said I'm not here to convince you if it was simple or not.

Uh, okay, but that was literally what you were trying to do by offering your anecdote in response to the other one.

 

[Cobby]

Brexiters: Brexit won't succeed because you Remoaners are undermining negotiations by not falling in line!

Also Brexiters: lol this is fine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45541240