Immigration.

[vinty]

It has been 4 years or so since the new accession states have joined the EU. The public was told at the time that only 13,000 migrants would come to the UK to work, in the event over a million have arrived and thats a conservative estimate.

The public was also told at the time that the economy would get a boost from migration and that we would all be better off, i'm not complaining about migrants but it is just that most people i know don't seem to feel that their quality of life has been improved by mass migration.

As a government inquiry into migration has concluded what most people suspected and that is migration is of no benefit to the economy, so what is all for?

 

[Brigadier]

Vinty,

Inquiry schminquiry - this government don't actually give a toss about inquiries or their findings - they'll do what they like with our money, when they feel like it.

I "contributed" to a consultative document about a fundamental change in legislation a couple of years ago, along with many other interested parties - businesses, trade associations, trade unions, scientists etc. I laboured under the impression that those outside the inner circle could have their voice heard. They can - but only if they're in agreement with the organ grinder. Contrary views are spun away. Let me clarify the "consultative" process -

1. Distribute whatever it is you want "consultation" on; in this case, there was a fundamental (and non-evidence based) change in the law that was pretty unanimously-opposed as being less safe current way of doing things.

2. (The crucial bit) - circulate the aspects on which you actually want consultation on - you absolutely don't want comment on most of it.

3. Ask all but one of the questions about aspects that you know will get the response you want.

4 Ask one question only about the contentious aspect - you already know no-one will agree with your proposal, but it doesn't matter - they've "agreed" with the other 12 "no-brainer" questions you've already asked them.

5. Release the results of the consultation along the lines of "the vast majority of the respondents agreed with the proposals" - well they would, wouldn't they? They'd been fed 12 "no-brainers"....

6. Underplay / spin out the bit that you want in, but pretty much every respondent thought was a bad idea.

7. Hey presto - you've got your new piece of law! Democracy works!

 

[joe-90]

There's no point talking about immigration as it is way too late. We are part of Europe now and there is a balancing act going on. The wealthy countries like UK, Germany and France will get poorer as the poorer countries like Poland and Latvia get richer. Business in this country wants cheap labour - hence the immigrants arriving at our shores. Simple isn't it? You won't change it - so better just get used to it.

 

[JohnD]

... The wealthy countries ... will get poorer as the poorer countries ...get richer.

You are suggesting that world prosperity is a zero-sum game. That isn't true.

 

[joe-90]

John. If 4 rich people and four poor people pool their resources - then the rich will get poorer and the poor get richer. Try pooling your wealth with a homeless person John and report back.

 

[JohnD]

if 40 people live on a small island, and one of then starts a brick factory:

the factory owner makes a profit
he employs workers who earn a wage
the citizens get better houses made out of bricks instead of mud
the builders earn by building brick houses

the community as a whole is more prosperous.

As it happens, the reunification of Germany over 15 years ago did almost what you are suggesting. Thety pooled a highly prosperous, Western European nation with a run-down, Eastern European economy.

Have a guess:
Do you think total GDP stayed the same?

 

[joe-90]

So we are more prosperous are we? Why don't we allow anyone from anywhere to join our little community? Open border. The fact that we are a tiny overpopulated island seems to have escaped you.

 

[JohnD]

Hey that's great!

You abandoned your argument

... The wealthy countries ... will get poorer as the poorer countries ...get richer.

and brought in a different one about density of population!

Fantastic footwork!

You've even ignored the idea that as the poorer countries get richer and the richer ones get poorer, the incentive to migrate will change

 

[joe-90]

Is this your German Utopia John?


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/germ-a09.shtml

 

[JohnD]

Sorry, I can't keep up with the lightening speed of your changing argument.

Have you abandoned not only your claim that their will be no growth in productivity and wealth, and also your claim that poor people move to rich areas, as well as your idea that the rich will get poorer?

You've also introduced the idea of a Utopia.

Now you've become a supporter of World Socialism and the International Comittee of the Fourth International

 

[joe-90]

It seems you can't keep up with any argument John. Go and lie down for a bit.

BTW, prove the figures wrong in that article (he won't)

 

[JohnD]

No need to expand your arguments infinitely.

Deal with the beginning of it.

... The wealthy countries ... will get poorer as the poorer countries ...get richer.

You are suggesting that world prosperity is a zero-sum game. That isn't true.

(he won't)

 

[joe-90]

We are not talking about world prosperity. Just a little bit of it. When rich and poor countries merge the rich country gets poorer - just like in Germany.

 

[JohnD]

I see you don't want to answer

Have a guess:
Do you think total GDP stayed the same?

 

[joe-90]

The people are worse off. Didn't you read the link I gave you?

Are you saying that doubling our population would make us twice as wealthy? If the answer is no - how much will our individual wealth rise?