I've only been to Norway on a business trip so I couldn't comment on how much things cost there because I wasn't paying for it, it was either bought for me or I waved a credit card and my employer picked up the tab...I thought the place was fantastic and the people there are great, definitely a place to visit...I couldn't live there but that's because my life is London and the City so everywhere else in the World, except New York, seems a bit slow or backward for my tastes...as for likening the UK to Norway in the event of a Brexit there's no similarities...The rest of Europe sells too much to the UK to be in a position to make demands on us...we'd call the shots on exit negotiations because we can always buy our goods elsewhere...as for the vote, I'm going to vote to stay in, we more than hold our own in the EU and we exchange a whole load of old fogies that retire to Spain and France etc and contribute little to the economy and get a young well educated dynamic and cheap workforce in return...no wonder our economy has fared better in recent years...
You are correct in saying we need a young well educated dynamic workforce but "cheap" can have unintended consequences.
Our working population is too small to support the increasing non working population, which is why curbing immigration is not an option. That is not the same as saying controlling immigration is not an option.
The EU was originally formed of roughly equally weighted economies and the freedom of movement meant there was in theory a balance of movement of wealth and people between countries and the concept of an economic migrant did not exist, you are simply a migrant worker. Makes for a more efficient use of resources which is essentially the idea of the EU.
Problem is the EU has now become a scheme for re-distribution of wealth between the richer countries to the poorer east European countries. The UK still has a need for immigration to meet demand for workers and if we were targeting workers that we needed fine, but we are not able to. Instead there is a flow of migrants who are leaving a low wage economy to a higher wage economy simply to arbitrage. Like it or not, they will accept lower wages because their vision is repatriating as much back to their homeland where it is worth more, and a low wage to us is a high wage to them. It also means the UK loses the benefit of the economic activity had the money been spent in the UK. That is the intention of the EU, which alongside grants and subsidies funded by our contributions is providing the equivalent of foreign aid to our European neighbours without much accountability.
The logic is that we help grow their economy and give us a market to sell our goods. Good theory if it works, but bad idea if it doesn't, look at Greece. Germany did it successfully with East Germany, at great cost, but it had a common financial and banking system to manage and control the transfer of wealth, plus it had an industrial infrastructure, unlike Greece. So the Euro zone makes absolute sense if you buy into the vision.
Worse still, because we cannot control the supply of labour from the EU to match our demand for labour, we attract economic migrants that exceed demand in certain sectors. If your labour supply exceeds labour demand you have reduced wages. We have the comic situation of politicians scratching their heads wondering why wages have stagnated, tax revenue has fallen and productivity has fallen. Productivity has fallen because cheap labour means you don't need to invest to increase efficiency, you just reduce labour costs to maintain profits. Our economy may have fared better than others but not as well as it could.
Economic migrants have always come to the UK and they have produced some of the most successful businesses that contribute to our economy. That does not mean unlimited, uncontrolled economic migration must be good. Their taxes will mainly exceed the welfare they receive, but the knock on effect of reducing the wages for others and displacement of labour which falls back on welfare has to be put into the equation.
I just don't have faith in the EU system to deliver a vision few could argue with. Just because the vision is good, doesn't mean Brussels can make it work. My view is that working towards the vision has become an end in itself, it almost doesn't matter if they get there.
It's an industry in its own right, how many UK lawyers it keeps in job i would hate to guess. Every time there is an EU directive it takes an army of lawyers, and time wasted on consultations with industries affected, for the UK government to decide how to implement the directive. Shedloads of money is then wasted by business for advice on how to comply with the UK legislation that is passed, followed by another set of lawyers wanting to prove the UK legislation has not correctly interpreted the directive so that they can find "victims" to make claims.
I can't buy into it, we can do more good with our own resources than giving it to Brussels to spend on a vision.
Either way its not going to matter... We'll have a Referendum, the OUT (I'll be voting this) could win but its not going to mean anything, it'll just be a stat for our politicians to see how many people hate the EU. They'll then turn to the EU and demand a deal to stay in (which they'll get) and everything will remain the same!!
Doesn't matter if its Tory or Labour in charge all are as bad as each other
In England everyone is going batshit at 5p shopping bags, really think people will be happy paying £9 a pint ?
Is that what will happen if we leave the EU?
No.
I wish I shared your optimism.
I've also heard that your ears will fall off if the 'out' campaign wins with more than 55% of the vote.
Of course. Don't forget we need to be in a political union to trade, cause that's how trade works..
Well, historically speaking, it's not that unusual, if you want to trade within a common market/economic area.
Take a look at the importance of the currency union to the unification of Germany under Bismarck....
Or, for example, the growth of the British Empire, driven to a large extent by the desire of English (later British) "investors/entrepreneurs" to trade freely where they wished... There were many wars entered into solely for the purposes of increasing access to trade.
Not saying anything in particular, but tariff-free trade without some kind of over-arching political union is highly unusual.
In general, things will be better for some, and worse for others, if there is a Brexit but, for those complaining that the EU is unworkable and undemocratic, that is in part due to the policies of successive UK governments (among others) unwilling to move towards qualified majority voting. The idea was to rapidly expand to the east, as a balance to Franco-German hegemony.
As for the European Parliament, I think that proportional representation is more democratic than first past the post - unfortunately the calibre of MEPs is largely determined by the importance with which the Chamber is viewed, as in not very...
I think Dippenhall nails a lot of this above, but a couple of extra points. Norway contributes to the EU and effectively has the same free movement by being part of the EEA. All the "out" people say we could do exactly the same, be part of the EEA, but lose the free movement and money paid to the EU. THey argue we're big enough that we can. I'm not convinced and I think that is the biggest leap in the dark of all these things (I am so far undecided as to how I will vote on this). Norway consistently votes no to joining the EU because they're stubborn and think they are not part of Europe (even though physically they border other European countries and are part of the same continent). But crucially, they can afford to because of their sovereign wealth fund, the British equivalent of which was spunked on unemployment benefits and closing industry down. Either way it's not a model that we are likely to follow. But one thing I think Dippenhall is wrong on is the number of lawyers. It will only go up if we leave and have to have loads of other treaties. But if it gets us out of the TTIP treaty then it's worth doing - the one that allows companies to sue governments if laws on things like pollution or workers rights stop them making a profit.
I think Dippenhall nails a lot of this above, but a couple of extra points. Norway contributes to the EU and effectively has the same free movement by being part of the EEA. All the "out" people say we could do exactly the same, be part of the EEA, but lose the free movement and money paid to the EU. THey argue we're big enough that we can. I'm not convinced and I think that is the biggest leap in the dark of all these things (I am so far undecided as to how I will vote on this). Norway consistently votes no to joining the EU because they're stubborn and think they are not part of Europe (even though physically they border other European countries and are part of the same continent). But crucially, they can afford to because of their sovereign wealth fund, the British equivalent of which was spunked on unemployment benefits and closing industry down. Either way it's not a model that we are likely to follow. But one thing I think Dippenhall is wrong on is the number of lawyers. It will only go up if we leave and have to have loads of other treaties. But if it gets us out of the TTIP treaty then it's worth doing - the one that allows companies to sue governments if laws on things like pollution or workers rights stop them making a profit.
Though the laws that are most under threat under TTIP are those which are most closely associated with EU membership...
I do agree that TTIP, and similar treaties being pushed by the US in the Pacific Rim, etc., will be disastrous for the ordinary members of the public.
Bloody Scadinavia: Danish rated the most contented people on earth; Sweden - Saga Noren's chat-up lines; don't get me started on Norway...all that wonderful scenery. Off to Iceland next, another former basket case which appears to be doing ok outside the Euro empire.
And if we leave we can choose skilled immigrants from where we like - unlike the current system which discriminates based upon where you live.
Lawyer from Australia? Sorry pal, we're taking in this unemployed Bulgarian.
-EU, 2016
Errm u wot m8? Have you had a look at immigration figures in detail?
Point us in the direction of these figures in detail then? Because as far as I'm aware the EU does permit unskilled mass immigration.
But his point is that skilled workers from outside the EU aren't permitted into the country because we can restrict the flow of those from outside the EU. The reality is that, in terms of numbers, there are more migrants entering from outside the EU. Which sort of blows his statement out of the water. ONS Link
What this means is that we are clearly granting work permits to a lot of people from outside the EU and in all likelihood they are either students, skilled workers, workers required to fill a labour shortage in a particular industry or the rich.
And if we leave we can choose skilled immigrants from where we like - unlike the current system which discriminates based upon where you live.
Lawyer from Australia? Sorry pal, we're taking in this unemployed Bulgarian.
-EU, 2016
Errm u wot m8? Have you had a look at immigration figures in detail?
Point us in the direction of these figures in detail then? Because as far as I'm aware the EU does permit unskilled mass immigration.
But his point is that skilled workers from outside the EU aren't permitted into the country because we can restrict the flow of those from outside the EU. The reality is that, in terms of numbers, there are more migrants entering from outside the EU. Which sort of blows his statement out of the water. ONS Link
What this means is that we are clearly granting work permits to a lot of people from outside the EU and in all likelihood they are either students, skilled workers, workers required to fill a labour shortage in a particular industry or the rich.
Point taken, but that's still over 70k arriving from within the EU who had no work lined up, least according to the link anyway, and with immigration from Romania & Bulgaria doubling in 2015 it's only going to get worse.
And if we leave we can choose skilled immigrants from where we like - unlike the current system which discriminates based upon where you live.
Lawyer from Australia? Sorry pal, we're taking in this unemployed Bulgarian.
-EU, 2016
Errm u wot m8? Have you had a look at immigration figures in detail?
Point us in the direction of these figures in detail then? Because as far as I'm aware the EU does permit unskilled mass immigration.
But his point is that skilled workers from outside the EU aren't permitted into the country because we can restrict the flow of those from outside the EU. The reality is that, in terms of numbers, there are more migrants entering from outside the EU. Which sort of blows his statement out of the water. ONS Link
What this means is that we are clearly granting work permits to a lot of people from outside the EU and in all likelihood they are either students, skilled workers, workers required to fill a labour shortage in a particular industry or the rich.
And a further point on from this is that at least we have a say on immigration outside of the EU. The fact that the numbers are higher is somewhat an irrelevance. It is what the UK government decided - not Brussels.
Why can't we have a say over all of it? Immigration should be about quality over quantity.
Quite refreshing to read that a country has laws and enforces them. My impression from my recent trip "home" was that the UK has become almost lawless and people seem to do whatever they want with no prospect of being apprehended. In fact in six weeks I counted only 2 police cars on the road. I encountered numerous people driving on the phone, people turning right at roundabouts, approaching from the left lane etc, I won't even bother talking about my experiences with the healthcare system on behalf of my elderly mother who has been treated absolutely appallingly for 4 years. It has become a mad house and I was so pleased to get out of it, I really think I'd lose the will to live very quickly if I still had to live there.
The fuckers! How dare they! Everyone in the civilised world knows Australians only EVER turn left at roundabouts from the correct lane. Britain could learn a lot from you QA.
I hate to be confrontational, but that is such a lot of rose tinted ex-pat bullshit, your two examples of traffic infringements do not constitute an almost lawless society.
Now if they bought in a law making exaggeration and hyperbole a criminal offence...
Well I consider dangerous driving as being very serious and it can cost lives. But there are no police anywhere to pull them over, same with using the mobile phone whilst driving. Virtually no police cars on the roads and even fewer on the beat. In contrast here in Qld I was pulled over 4 times just last year for routine breathalysers. Police stand outside many schools with hand held radar and there is generally a strong police presence on the roads stopping dangerous drivers and testing them for drink and drugs. No suspect is identified for 50 % of all crimes committed in the Uk now and police stations are being shut down left right and centre. The police are overrun to such an extent that most minor crimes now no longer even get investigated. This was not just my experience but was also the view of family, friends (one of whom works at Scotland Yard) and cab drivers that I met during my stay, who were all quick to tell me how lucky I was to have moved to Australia and how the local area (Romford) had gone to pot in recent years. I did not go into further details about other lawlessness in my last post as I did not want to detract from Praque's post which was about Norway. I heard other horrible stories, one from a local landowner who was paranoid about walkers going near his lake because his Swans were being shot and taken for food. Same from my brother who lives in a beautiful little village near Stanstead. The local herd of Dear, some of whom would venture into his garden, had recently been wiped out illegally by people hunting for food. These things may all seem trivial to you, but to me and the people I spoke to, they signalled an erosion of the quality of life that they had become accustomed to until only a short time ago. I did find your post needlessly confrontational BTW, I'm not telling lies, I'm merely speaking of my recent experience and the importance of people adhering to laws in order for a society to function effectively and pleasantly for the majority.
And if we leave we can choose skilled immigrants from where we like - unlike the current system which discriminates based upon where you live.
Lawyer from Australia? Sorry pal, we're taking in this unemployed Bulgarian.
-EU, 2016
Errm u wot m8? Have you had a look at immigration figures in detail?
Point us in the direction of these figures in detail then? Because as far as I'm aware the EU does permit unskilled mass immigration.
But his point is that skilled workers from outside the EU aren't permitted into the country because we can restrict the flow of those from outside the EU. The reality is that, in terms of numbers, there are more migrants entering from outside the EU. Which sort of blows his statement out of the water. ONS Link
What this means is that we are clearly granting work permits to a lot of people from outside the EU and in all likelihood they are either students, skilled workers, workers required to fill a labour shortage in a particular industry or the rich.
And a further point on from this is that at least we have a say on immigration outside of the EU. The fact that the numbers are higher is somewhat an irrelevance. It is what the UK government decided - not Brussels.
Why can't we have a say over all of it? Immigration should be about quality over quantity.
But what about jobs that us natives refuse to do or what about industries that have a shortage? I just don't think the numbers will change that much by exiting the EU
And if we leave we can choose skilled immigrants from where we like - unlike the current system which discriminates based upon where you live.
Lawyer from Australia? Sorry pal, we're taking in this unemployed Bulgarian.
-EU, 2016
Errm u wot m8? Have you had a look at immigration figures in detail?
Point us in the direction of these figures in detail then? Because as far as I'm aware the EU does permit unskilled mass immigration.
But his point is that skilled workers from outside the EU aren't permitted into the country because we can restrict the flow of those from outside the EU. The reality is that, in terms of numbers, there are more migrants entering from outside the EU. Which sort of blows his statement out of the water. ONS Link
What this means is that we are clearly granting work permits to a lot of people from outside the EU and in all likelihood they are either students, skilled workers, workers required to fill a labour shortage in a particular industry or the rich.
And a further point on from this is that at least we have a say on immigration outside of the EU. The fact that the numbers are higher is somewhat an irrelevance. It is what the UK government decided - not Brussels.
Why can't we have a say over all of it? Immigration should be about quality over quantity.
But what about jobs that us natives refuse to do or what about industries that have a shortage? I just don't think the numbers will change that much by exiting the EU
Well you've proved my point Colth, we've enough of our own bums to worry about, let alone 10s of 1000s from elsewhere.
And if we leave we can choose skilled immigrants from where we like - unlike the current system which discriminates based upon where you live.
Lawyer from Australia? Sorry pal, we're taking in this unemployed Bulgarian.
-EU, 2016
Errm u wot m8? Have you had a look at immigration figures in detail?
Point us in the direction of these figures in detail then? Because as far as I'm aware the EU does permit unskilled mass immigration.
But his point is that skilled workers from outside the EU aren't permitted into the country because we can restrict the flow of those from outside the EU. The reality is that, in terms of numbers, there are more migrants entering from outside the EU. Which sort of blows his statement out of the water. ONS Link
What this means is that we are clearly granting work permits to a lot of people from outside the EU and in all likelihood they are either students, skilled workers, workers required to fill a labour shortage in a particular industry or the rich.
And a further point on from this is that at least we have a say on immigration outside of the EU. The fact that the numbers are higher is somewhat an irrelevance. It is what the UK government decided - not Brussels.
Why can't we have a say over all of it? Immigration should be about quality over quantity.
But what about jobs that us natives refuse to do or what about industries that have a shortage? I just don't think the numbers will change that much by exiting the EU
Ah yes, the 'jobs that natives refuse to do argument'. I'm only young but I don't remember ever hearing about fields of fruit just rotting away before 2004. I don't remember any stories about offices taken over by ramping spiders because nobody was around to clean them.
I think it is unfair to assume that the millions of unemployed brits wouldn't do that work. I also think that the government should stop all benefit payments to able-bodied people who refuse to take up such jobs - even on a temporary basis
In order to be a member of the European Free Trade Area - Norway has to sign up to most of the EU's Common Market Legislation - so it gets most of the EU's legislation and has hardly any input into its content. The naysayers will of course say we could negotiate a different deal but I wouldn't want to rely upon it if my job depended on exports to the EU.
And if we leave we can choose skilled immigrants from where we like - unlike the current system which discriminates based upon where you live.
Lawyer from Australia? Sorry pal, we're taking in this unemployed Bulgarian.
-EU, 2016
Errm u wot m8? Have you had a look at immigration figures in detail?
Point us in the direction of these figures in detail then? Because as far as I'm aware the EU does permit unskilled mass immigration.
What this means is that we are clearly granting work permits to a lot of people from outside the EU and in all likelihood they are either students, skilled workers, workers required to fill a labour shortage in a particular industry or the rich.
You don't need a work permit to immigrate from inside the EU. Or a Student visa.
Anybody and everybody can set up home here, with or without a job, with or without entering further education, with or with out English as a language skill and with or without any intention of doing anything about it.
And if we leave we can choose skilled immigrants from where we like - unlike the current system which discriminates based upon where you live.
Lawyer from Australia? Sorry pal, we're taking in this unemployed Bulgarian.
-EU, 2016
Errm u wot m8? Have you had a look at immigration figures in detail?
Point us in the direction of these figures in detail then? Because as far as I'm aware the EU does permit unskilled mass immigration.
But his point is that skilled workers from outside the EU aren't permitted into the country because we can restrict the flow of those from outside the EU. The reality is that, in terms of numbers, there are more migrants entering from outside the EU. Which sort of blows his statement out of the water. ONS Link
What this means is that we are clearly granting work permits to a lot of people from outside the EU and in all likelihood they are either students, skilled workers, workers required to fill a labour shortage in a particular industry or the rich.
And a further point on from this is that at least we have a say on immigration outside of the EU. The fact that the numbers are higher is somewhat an irrelevance. It is what the UK government decided - not Brussels.
Why can't we have a say over all of it? Immigration should be about quality over quantity.
But what about jobs that us natives refuse to do or what about industries that have a shortage? I just don't think the numbers will change that much by exiting the EU
Ah yes, the 'jobs that natives refuse to do argument'. I'm only young but I don't remember ever hearing about fields of fruit just rotting away before 2004. I don't remember any stories about offices taken over by ramping spiders because nobody was around to clean them.
I think it is unfair to assume that the millions of unemployed brits wouldn't do that work. I also think that the government should stop all benefit payments to able-bodied people who refuse to take up such jobs - even on a temporary basis
Well sounds like you've got everything sorted out, might as well put you in charge and ignore anything every economist has told us about what is going on.
And if we leave we can choose skilled immigrants from where we like - unlike the current system which discriminates based upon where you live.
Lawyer from Australia? Sorry pal, we're taking in this unemployed Bulgarian.
-EU, 2016
Errm u wot m8? Have you had a look at immigration figures in detail?
Point us in the direction of these figures in detail then? Because as far as I'm aware the EU does permit unskilled mass immigration.
But his point is that skilled workers from outside the EU aren't permitted into the country because we can restrict the flow of those from outside the EU. The reality is that, in terms of numbers, there are more migrants entering from outside the EU. Which sort of blows his statement out of the water. ONS Link
What this means is that we are clearly granting work permits to a lot of people from outside the EU and in all likelihood they are either students, skilled workers, workers required to fill a labour shortage in a particular industry or the rich.
And a further point on from this is that at least we have a say on immigration outside of the EU. The fact that the numbers are higher is somewhat an irrelevance. It is what the UK government decided - not Brussels.
Why can't we have a say over all of it? Immigration should be about quality over quantity.
But what about jobs that us natives refuse to do or what about industries that have a shortage? I just don't think the numbers will change that much by exiting the EU
Ah yes, the 'jobs that natives refuse to do argument'. I'm only young but I don't remember ever hearing about fields of fruit just rotting away before 2004. I don't remember any stories about offices taken over by ramping spiders because nobody was around to clean them.
I think it is unfair to assume that the millions of unemployed brits wouldn't do that work. I also think that the government should stop all benefit payments to able-bodied people who refuse to take up such jobs - even on a temporary basis
Well sounds like you've got everything sorted out, might as well put you in charge and ignore anything every economist has told us about what is going on.
Is it fair to assume that the people debating against colthe3rd would like the UK to leave the free movement of people?
People are more than free to come into the UK, they just shouldnt be allowed to stay indefinitely / work / buy a house unless they've got the correct Visa
Naysayers will also point out that major developed countries outside of the EU seem to manage absolutely fine.
European "major developed countries" or are you referring to countries that are either in or closely associated with other trading blocks ? Name a couple.
Comments
Our working population is too small to support the increasing non working population, which is why curbing immigration is not an option. That is not the same as saying controlling immigration is not an option.
The EU was originally formed of roughly equally weighted economies and the freedom of movement meant there was in theory a balance of movement of wealth and people between countries and the concept of an economic migrant did not exist, you are simply a migrant worker. Makes for a more efficient use of resources which is essentially the idea of the EU.
Problem is the EU has now become a scheme for re-distribution of wealth between the richer countries to the poorer east European countries. The UK still has a need for immigration to meet demand for workers and if we were targeting workers that we needed fine, but we are not able to. Instead there is a flow of migrants who are leaving a low wage economy to a higher wage economy simply to arbitrage. Like it or not, they will accept lower wages because their vision is repatriating as much back to their homeland where it is worth more, and a low wage to us is a high wage to them. It also means the UK loses the benefit of the economic activity had the money been spent in the UK. That is the intention of the EU, which alongside grants and subsidies funded by our contributions is providing the equivalent of foreign aid to our European neighbours without much accountability.
The logic is that we help grow their economy and give us a market to sell our goods. Good theory if it works, but bad idea if it doesn't, look at Greece. Germany did it successfully with East Germany, at great cost, but it had a common financial and banking system to manage and control the transfer of wealth, plus it had an industrial infrastructure, unlike Greece. So the Euro zone makes absolute sense if you buy into the vision.
Worse still, because we cannot control the supply of labour from the EU to match our demand for labour, we attract economic migrants that exceed demand in certain sectors. If your labour supply exceeds labour demand you have reduced wages. We have the comic situation of politicians scratching their heads wondering why wages have stagnated, tax revenue has fallen and productivity has fallen. Productivity has fallen because cheap labour means you don't need to invest to increase efficiency, you just reduce labour costs to maintain profits. Our economy may have fared better than others but not as well as it could.
Economic migrants have always come to the UK and they have produced some of the most successful businesses that contribute to our economy. That does not mean unlimited, uncontrolled economic migration must be good. Their taxes will mainly exceed the welfare they receive, but the knock on effect of reducing the wages for others and displacement of labour which falls back on welfare has to be put into the equation.
I just don't have faith in the EU system to deliver a vision few could argue with. Just because the vision is good, doesn't mean Brussels can make it work. My view is that working towards the vision has become an end in itself, it almost doesn't matter if they get there.
It's an industry in its own right, how many UK lawyers it keeps in job i would hate to guess. Every time there is an EU directive it takes an army of lawyers, and time wasted on consultations with industries affected, for the UK government to decide how to implement the directive. Shedloads of money is then wasted by business for advice on how to comply with the UK legislation that is passed, followed by another set of lawyers wanting to prove the UK legislation has not correctly interpreted the directive so that they can find "victims" to make claims.
I can't buy into it, we can do more good with our own resources than giving it to Brussels to spend on a vision.
Doesn't matter if its Tory or Labour in charge all are as bad as each other
Take a look at the importance of the currency union to the unification of Germany under Bismarck....
Or, for example, the growth of the British Empire, driven to a large extent by the desire of English (later British) "investors/entrepreneurs" to trade freely where they wished... There were many wars entered into solely for the purposes of increasing access to trade.
Not saying anything in particular, but tariff-free trade without some kind of over-arching political union is highly unusual.
In general, things will be better for some, and worse for others, if there is a Brexit but, for those complaining that the EU is unworkable and undemocratic, that is in part due to the policies of successive UK governments (among others) unwilling to move towards qualified majority voting. The idea was to rapidly expand to the east, as a balance to Franco-German hegemony.
As for the European Parliament, I think that proportional representation is more democratic than first past the post - unfortunately the calibre of MEPs is largely determined by the importance with which the Chamber is viewed, as in not very...
But one thing I think Dippenhall is wrong on is the number of lawyers. It will only go up if we leave and have to have loads of other treaties. But if it gets us out of the TTIP treaty then it's worth doing - the one that allows companies to sue governments if laws on things like pollution or workers rights stop them making a profit.
I do agree that TTIP, and similar treaties being pushed by the US in the Pacific Rim, etc., will be disastrous for the ordinary members of the public.
What this means is that we are clearly granting work permits to a lot of people from outside the EU and in all likelihood they are either students, skilled workers, workers required to fill a labour shortage in a particular industry or the rich.
Why can't we have a say over all of it? Immigration should be about quality over quantity.
In contrast here in Qld I was pulled over 4 times just last year for routine breathalysers. Police stand outside many schools with hand held radar and there is generally a strong police presence on the roads stopping dangerous drivers and testing them for drink and drugs.
No suspect is identified for 50 % of all crimes committed in the Uk now and police stations are being shut down left right and centre. The police are overrun to such an extent that most minor crimes now no longer even get investigated. This was not just my experience but was also the view of family, friends (one of whom works at Scotland Yard) and cab drivers that I met during my stay, who were all quick to tell me how lucky I was to have moved to Australia and how the local area (Romford) had gone to pot in recent years.
I did not go into further details about other lawlessness in my last post as I did not want to detract from Praque's post which was about Norway. I heard other horrible stories, one from a local landowner who was paranoid about walkers going near his lake because his Swans were being shot and taken for food. Same from my brother who lives in a beautiful little village near Stanstead. The local herd of Dear, some of whom would venture into his garden, had recently been wiped out illegally by people hunting for food. These things may all seem trivial to you, but to me and the people I spoke to, they signalled an erosion of the quality of life that they had become accustomed to until only a short time ago.
I did find your post needlessly confrontational BTW, I'm not telling lies, I'm merely speaking of my recent experience and the importance of people adhering to laws in order for a society to function effectively and pleasantly for the majority.
I think it is unfair to assume that the millions of unemployed brits wouldn't do that work. I also think that the government should stop all benefit payments to able-bodied people who refuse to take up such jobs - even on a temporary basis
Anybody and everybody can set up home here, with or without a job, with or without entering further education, with or with out English as a language skill and with or without any intention of doing anything about it.