Providing for migrants

The government pledged to reduce migration substantially at the last election. One of its main reasons for doing so is the pressure rapid large scale migration places on public services and housing, making it difficult for the country to keep up with demand. When we welcome people to our country we want them to enjoy a decent standard of living and to be a successful part of a community which is well off by world standards.

Some analysis which shows low paid migrants make a contribution by paying more in tax than they receive in benefits does not tell the whole story. Some of it does not even tell the whole story on tax and benefits, by leaving out Housing benefit. Relying on averages can be misleading. It is clearly true that a low paid migrant will pay some VAT and other charges, even if their NI and Income tax contribution is low. What this analysis rarely shows is the capital costs the state and others need to undertake to provide for the needs of a large new migrant inflow.

The ONS in their National Balance Sheet work has a figure for the end of 2013 saying that each UK resident is supported by on average £119,000 of capital assets. Housing is the main asset in each case, but we all needs road, trains, power stations, water works, doctors surgeries and schools as part of the community backup for us and our families. If one extra migrant arrives there may be no need to build a new surgery or add a new power station, but if hundreds of thousands arrive we do need to expand physical capacity and add buildings and equipment as well as hiring more public service staff.

The £119,000 figure is an average, and includes a lot of expensive housing in some parts of the country. It would therefore be wrong to suggest we need to provide £119,000 for every new migrant, or that all that money has to be spent on public provision. It is , however, the case that every migrant will need a home and many will need state or social housing as they will find home prices too dear. Some will rent from the private sector, but will seek Housing Benefit assistance as rents are often high.

One of the reasons we need more accurate figures for new arrivals is to plan better. We need to ensure the right number of new homes, extra school places, GP surgery capacity, adequate water and electricity supply and the rest. Each migrant will need several tens of thousands of pounds of backing investment on average to ensure they can all be housed and provided for to a satisfactory standard. There are said by the government to be 64.5 m people in the UK, but there are 68.4 m registered with GPs.


  1. The Active Citizen
    May 18, 2016

    We certainly need more accurate information on both migrant numbers and also on the issue you raise of how much infrastructure each person ‘consumes’.

    It seems strange to the everyday person that we still don’t seem to have this in 2016. One would have thought it essential in order to run the country and plan for its needs.

    1. Lifelogic
      May 18, 2016

      They do have it they just do not find it convenient to release it.

      1. Hope
        May 18, 2016

        Controlled immigration is welcomed, mass uncontrolled immigration where Germany has more say over who can come here is not. With all the statistical information at the government’s desposal it is not possible they did not know the true figures when he was claiming otherwise in prominent, I public and in speeches. It is clear to me Cameron has been lying over what his government knew on immigration figures. He has been told us he would reduce to tens of thousands when he knew he had no control over EU immigration and has done nothing about it. He has committed a deception on the public (David Laws should be rolled out instead of Cable to tell us the truth) by not producing the real figures which shows immigration running at 800,000 per year! No public service can cope with this and why should the existing taxpayers suffer as a consequence of Cameron’s deception, no wonder the World Health Service is in a mess and we cannot get timely appointments. We have said on this site before there is not a housing crisis it is an immigration crisis, moreover an invasion. Teresa May’s speech shows that Cameron was not alone in deceiving the public. Again yesterday we saw her attacking the police while she has an appalling record. She needs to be held to account and booted out. She and Cameron are putting us in danger.

        1. Hope
          May 18, 2016

          For clarity for Major, Brown, Blair, Cameron, Heseltine and Clarke types this is not prejudice or racist it is called running government services properly for the people who elected politicians to do it on their behalf.

          If you are not up to the job. Do not put yourself forward. Osborne and May take three steps back.

    2. stred
      May 18, 2016

      I put todays in yesterdays by mistake.

      Posted May 18, 2016 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      The graph by UCL Centre for Research Analysis of Migration shows that after 2008 until 2011 contributions to the UK economy fell below expenditure. (sent to JR by email) Whether tax credits, which are complex, and housing benefit were included is not known. HB is probably the largest benefit in areas where house prices are high and these areas are often with highest migration.

      The graph sent showing housing affordability (Nationwide) and net migration (ONS) showed the close relationship between the two and the even closer relationship had mortgages dropped after the banking crash.

      The figure of 4m GP registrations more than even the larger NI figures is very important. It shows that either GPs are falsely claiming for a large number of ghost patients or there are far more dependents and illegals in addition to ‘short term’ migrants who actually use the NHS other services and benefits. Or it could be a mix of both.

      As Reece-Mogg of Tiverton says- deceiving the HoC is a resigning matter. Deceiving the electorate should be too. And payment for non-existent patients may be fraud or gross negligence.

      1. stred
        May 18, 2016

        sorry. …had mortgages NOT dropped

  2. Lifelogic
    May 18, 2016

    Indeed on average most people on less than about £40K in salary are actually a net liability to the state.

    To compare what they pay in tax with what they get in benefits (and even without housing) is an absurd comparison. What about all the other cost of the state, what about their children’s schooling, the NHS, roads, defence, police and all the other costs of the UK bloated over paid and rather inefficient state?

    1. Lifelogic
      May 18, 2016

      I see Heseltine is questioning Boris’s judgement. Rather rich given his own record of being on the wrong side of nearly every argument for years – the ERM, the EURO, the size of the state, endless government intervention and countless other issues.

      I see he too studied Oxford PPE, but according to WIKI got a second-class degree, described by his own tutor as “a great and undeserved triumph”. I suppose given the record of the PPE graduates with firsts that is at least a bit better than getting a first.

      1. Dame Rita Webb
        May 18, 2016

        Remember he is dyslexic hence the tutor’s praise.

        1. Hope
          May 18, 2016

          Why would ITV roll out a disloyal failure of yesterday year without giving Boris the right to reply? Heseltine’s fantatism knows no bounds he still thinks the UK ought to be in the Euro and will one day join. If we listened to him the country would be broke, thousands of people out of work, repossession of homes and business bust, look across the Eurozone for the clue!

          It is understood ITV is pro EU because of it corporate sponsors in advertising. Perhaps ITV ought to consider the sponsors need the public to buy their products. The public need to vote with their feet when buying to show people power.

      2. Denis Cooper
        May 18, 2016

        Not to mention his “preposterous” behaviour with the mace!

        1. Mitchel
          May 18, 2016

          He’d be much more at home in either the Ukrainian or Turkish parliaments with that sort of behaviour!Perhaps he’d like to consider a swap.

    2. Anonymous
      May 18, 2016

      Lifelogic – Anyone who works for the state, or who is in employment subsidised by the state is a net liability to the state – even if they earn over 40k.

      1. Alan
        May 18, 2016

        I take it you mean a financial liability, and in that sense I would agree. But we do need health workers, teachers, police, soldiers, people to empty the bins, administrators to run the state provided services and so on. They are assets of the state.

        In reality I think there are just different ways of paying for services – compulsory where the service is essential, and voluntary where it is optional. It’s not really helpful in my opinion to imply that some people are liabilities and others are assets. Everyone who works, or supports someone who works, or studies in order to work is an asset. The only liabilities are people like me, living on a pension (and even that I worked to get).

      2. a-tracy
        May 18, 2016

        If police officers, hospital workers etc, weren’t employed by the state they would be privately employed by insurance type companies, we would all still have to pay a contribution for their toil. Their wages should be covered by the related charges specifically for that purpose i.e. Employer and Employee National Insurance Contributions and Housing and Business Rates/Council tax, if they cost more than the insurance payment system then the system is a scam and not fit for purpose. If we collected and ring fenced taxes properly and didn’t pay out unaffordable pension schemes to this sector, that is just a pension time bomb waiting to go off, we would be in a better place, don’t you always wonder why high hourly rate but part-time through choice workers may not have to pay any National Insurance, people that live at home after 18 don’t have to contribute to the local services and protection from the police, fire etc. they consume (oh yes we tried to correct that and look at what happened; boom!).

      3. sm
        May 18, 2016

        Would you include members of the Armed Forces, police/firemen etc as a liability? I regard paying for them in the same way I look at house or car insurance, a vital expense for services I hope never to have to use.

        1. Anonymous
          May 18, 2016

          SM – They are not creating wealth for the country. The tax they pay back into the system originated from the system, minus a bit.

        2. Colin
          May 18, 2016

          Perhaps you are struggling with the meaning of the word “liability”. It does not necessarily mean that they are not worth having, just that they have to be paid for.

          1. Anonymous
            May 18, 2016

            Colin – You’re right. Thank you.

          2. Lifelogic
            May 19, 2016

            Financial liability to other taxpayers I meant of course. Pay perhaps 5k in taxes and expect schooling for children, the NHS, subsidised housing, a state pension and all the rest.

            It does not work.

      4. Tad Davison
        May 18, 2016


        That’s the one that needs to be driven home!

        Shadow Chancellor McDonnell might like to take your point on board too, along with all the other apologists for mass immigration who seem wedded to the belief that we cannot do without it and that Britain must be the repository for everyone who wants a better life.

        And nobody ever seems to mention the pressure on our open spaces, along with the steady diminution of the quality of life that over-population brings with it. No-one could possibly miss the numbers of three-storey flats springing up all over the place where people are crammed in like sardines, with little elbow-room or even a garden to call their own. That seems not to appear on the statistics or the calculations.

        We could do much better than this, and one way, is to take away the pull factor by controlling immigration – something we cannot possibly do whilst we belong to the EU.

        If only the west didn’t keep starting wars all over the place, and de-stabilising countries like Libya and creating problems just so the arms manufacturers could justify the spending that leaves most other people poorer. Unfortunately, that would take an ethical foreign policy. Something severely lacking in western democracies.

        Are you listening Mr Cameron and Mr Hammond?

        Tad Davison


  3. The Active Citizen
    May 18, 2016

    JR, yesterday Lesley asked you about the Electoral Commission’s leaflet going out to 28m households this week. She asked who was responsible for the page on ‘Remain’ and the page on ‘Leave’.

    The answer is that each campaign was asked to provide a single page, and this was used by the EC without editing.

    Lesley, the quality of the Leave’s page is entirely down to Vote Leave. I won’t give my opinions on this right now.

    Here’s a link to the electronic copy of this leaflet:

    1. Beecee
      May 18, 2016

      Marketing people will tell you that an advert in a magazine or newspaper has but seconds to get your interest before your eyes scan past it. The Remain ad in the leaflet passed that test whereas the Leave ad did not even come close.

      The Leave Campaign seems to be always on the back foot and in defensive mode. Boris is not enough.

      Time to bring in a new team who are on the ball – before it is too late. Maybe it already is!

      1. Anonymous
        May 18, 2016

        Beecee – There must be grounds for a re-run of the referendum on the basis of the biased BBC and the biased Government leaflet. I balk at the idea of a close referendum being re-run (what if it’s close but in our favour ?) but I think Project Fear has actually been Project Terror.

        “Yet another astute young man deciding that Remain is the best option.” BBC1 news anchor this morning rounding up after an unchallenged interviewee spoke tosh.

        1. Leslie Singleton
          May 18, 2016

          Dear Anon–If the result is close in favour of Remain there will be trouble, possibly violent very serious trouble, because the half that want serious reform as a minimum will have been denied anything at all (Cameron’s fundamental re-negotiation – joke – apart of course). The Scottish position is different: they cannily got their retaliation in first and have won changes worthy of the name, and so thought by all Scots I know.

          1. Anonymous
            May 19, 2016

            I don’t believe there will be violence if it is Remain. I believe that will happen if we vote Leave though.

            UKIP types have a record of peaceful protest by the ballot box. Those against them are the ones that have a record of violence and disorder.

      2. turbo terrier
        May 18, 2016


        How right you are. Unless the two sides of wanting to get out of the EU forget differences and get on with the job that will require them working together as a team and hunting in packs. Same song, same words it ain’t rocket science.

        The remainers are leaving themselves wide open at times and we can never deliver a knock out blow. At times we are looking silly bordering on stupid. Every radio and TV interview with the public demands clear facts. Lets start delivering them and PBQ.

      3. Ken Moore
        May 18, 2016

        Agreed the Leave ad was pretty awful it’s like they don’t really care about winning -No clear structure no simple easily digested arguments.

        On the ‘trump card’ of unsustainable immigration, Leave meekly and apologetically say ‘migrants ‘affect’ public services. What does this mean ?. They only had an A5 side and wasted space repeating the £350million a week fact no fewer than 4 times!..but no mention of the strain on A @ E, school places, roads, GP’s. Cowards!

        Can’t they scrape a few pennies together and employ a really good advertising person who knows how to produce an eye catching document that’s more engaging than say the terms and conditions of a credit card statement ?
        The best minds (J Redwood included) should have been locked in a room and forced to come up with a series of bullet points under the headings ..

        SECURITY..ECONOMY….etc. Instead we got something that looks like it was knocked together by the work experience placement the night before….

        Reply I and others have sent them proposals but they settle these statements without us

    2. Iain Moore
      May 18, 2016

      Vote Leave who seem to be doing their damnedest to lose the referendum. They have failed to challenge the Remain campaigns economic argument, Boris seems to spend most of the time getting into scrapes that burns up media time explaining it , time lost that should be spent presenting the Brexit case. Other than some utterances about ‘getting control’ the democratic argument for leaving the EU is not being made, and as for the referendum leaflet I got mine yesterday and was appalled at the presentation of the Brexit case, who ever did it and gave the OK for it should be immediately sacked, for they don’t have the first clue how to catch the eye of people selling a service or a political message.

      The leaflet sums up the whole incompetent shambolic Vote Leave referendum campaign.

      1. Dame Rita Webb
        May 18, 2016

        It does not matter whether the leave campaign is shambolic or not. If you are a prole you do not need any of their agitprop. By instinct you know your personal economic situation is in a constant state of decline and you know exactly who is to blame. Declining benefits from work, increased personal debt, unaffordable housing etc

        What I cannot understand is why the left is missing a golden opportunity to topple a Conservative PM literally in a matter of weeks. This is the same PM who has continually shown he could not fight his way out of a paper bag too.

    3. oldtimer
      May 18, 2016

      There is a useful comment on the state of the two campaigns over at here:

      The author elaborates the argument set out in the title of the link above. This sounds right to me. As one of the committed I find it difficult to judge which of the two arguments set out in the leaflet will be more likely to prevail with the uncommitted. We shall find out soon enough.

      1. stred
        May 18, 2016

        This was appropriate for today. Plus ca change.

    4. Handbags
      May 18, 2016

      Yes, I saw the leaflet too – simply astonishing.

      It seems to indicate that there’s a bit of control freakery going on – someone is simply incapable of letting the professionals do their job.

  4. Narrow shoulders
    May 18, 2016

    Recently my council boasted that it had invested £150 million in new school places by building new schools.

    As the indigenous birthrate is falling the pressure on places can only be coming from immigrant children or the offspring of these born outside this country.

    Waitresses, builders, shop workers and other low paid immigrants on minimum wages can in no way have generated £150 million in taxes unless there were even more of them than there already are (maybe that is why we need Turkey).

    That £150 million was just for Primary places so the pressure and expenditure will soon move to secondary schools so more spending.

    The economy will be better off by £300 million so that must be positive mustn’t it?

    Who is benefiting from this? Not me (although the choice of take away fare has improved)

    1. A different Simon
      May 18, 2016

      They won’t even be generating enough in taxes to pay the jobseekers allowance of the Briton’s they displace , let alone housing benefit etc .

      All this crap about increasing the minimum wage is a huge red herring if your jobs is being done by (frequently woefully over qualified) cheap labour from abroad .

      The effects on the children of British parents who have been thrown onto the scrap heap is devastating .

      We need to elect a Govt which is for the people .

  5. APL
    May 18, 2016

    “Some analysis which shows low paid migrants make a contribution by paying more in tax than they receive in benefits does not tell the whole story.”

    No, there’s the benefits of Tuberculosis, Zika virus. The ‘Public Health England’ in a written submission to the London Assembly puts rates of TB to be 150 per hundred thousand of the population in some areas of London.

    That is a remarkable benefit of diversity, given that in the UK by the seventies we had all but eradicated TB.

    Wonder what it’s costing the NHS?

    1. a-tracy
      May 18, 2016

      APL This is worrying, my children weren’t immunised against TB because the government stopped the TB immunisation program and they will be living in London! Do London children still get immunised? I wonder if this can be requested from the NHS as the risk is increasing?

  6. Antisthenes
    May 18, 2016

    Historically immigration and free movement of labour has not been a problem unless the intent of immigrants was one of conquest. In fact it has proven considerably beneficial to societies. However then circumstances were considerably different the state did not provide so much for the individual. These days the state provides much too much it can easily be argued so a different dynamic is in play. So large numbers of immigrants arriving is a drain on the economy and the cultural impact is extremely disabling.

    The numbers entering Europe and the UK currently is far in access to what is sustainable and is building up problems that there will be no easy solution to. Coupled with the many crises that already confront us most created and being created by Brussels and the EU project the future looks foreboding.

    Certainly there is a case for some immigration because of the problems of ageing population, the need for skilled workers and it helps to keep our culture vibrant. When that immigration is in too large a number then pressures mount and it destroys any benefits. You have named some of the problems but their are more such as security issues and our way of life is seriously under threat. This current wave of migration is for all intents and purposes turning into one of conquest an unintended consequence of it.

  7. agricola
    May 18, 2016

    The difference of 3.9 Million in the population figures as you say makes it very difficult to project capital and personnel requirements. When you notice the discrepancy in figures between the annual influx of immigrants and NI numbers issued it gives credence to my past stated figure of at least 2 Million illegals in the country.

    It all no doubt helps keep the cost of labour well down because illegals will not be the first to run to tribunals, being thankful to survive. The knock on effect is that more are kept down at the minimum wage level. So apart from my short term fix of removing all illegals, how about an aim to reduce the population to around 40 million over the next hundred years just by removing all the incentives to have more than 1.5 children per family. Government solutions to such problems are always spend more money to cover the need. How about reducing the need and spending less.

    1. alan jutson
      May 18, 2016


      Your comments make a lot of sense, but unfortunately you will also need at the same time to unwind the various Ponzi schemes the Government runs which pays for present pensions and benefits, hence the need for more and more tax payers to pay for present and future oldies like me.

      It will need a long and gradual change to rebalance it all now.

  8. Cheshire Girl
    May 18, 2016

    When it comes to immigration, much is being hidden from us as the Government blathers on about ‘diversity’ ‘vibrancy’ and other buzz words which are supposed to make us feel good. We should be only taking people in with the skills we need, and they should be rigorously interviewed to make sure that is the case.
    I watched the tv programme ‘How to get a council house’ last night, and it made sober viewing. There is a chronic shortage of social housing in Slough (and other areas) and the council said it could only get worse. They were having to send people as far away as Birmingham. Admittedly this was not just caused by immigration, but it had made it much worse.
    It doesnt help that every time the public express concern about these matters, the debate is quickly shut down by statements that’ the NHS would collapse without them’ and ‘ we have a ‘moral responsibility’ . We need some tough minded politicians who put the interests of this country first – but I wont hold my breath!

    1. agricola
      May 18, 2016

      Cheshire Girl.

      Diversity and vibrancy means they have found a new buzzy restaurant in Islington. It is not an open invitation for all and sundry to come and live next door in Chipping Norton.

      The iniquity is the amount of money that Government hand out to new arrivals who at the time of arrival have contributed nothing to the economy and some of course who come with criminal intent. That being the only life they have known. Compared with the abysmal amount pensioners get after a lifetime of contribution, in terms of pension and end of life care. Priorities are totally inverted.

      The NHS would not be in crisis if it did not have to cope with such a crazy , government sponsored, acceleration in population and the acceleration in diseases we thought we had eliminated in the 80s. It would not then have to take qualified staff from poor countries, and if in addition it trained it’s own staff.

  9. Iain gill
    May 18, 2016

    Doesn’t factor in the local they displace from the workforce and their benefits, doesn’t factor in the disincentive to train locals, doesn’t factor in the above average need for healthcare, doesn’t factor in the disruption to schools of having non English speakers,, etc

  10. Beecee
    May 18, 2016

    Do the figures extolling the financial value of immigrants include the cost to the public purse of UK people on benefits, including job-seekers allowance, because the lower paid jobs for which they maybe suited are taken by EU migrants?

  11. Elsey
    May 18, 2016

    Why is it that the UK provides everything for immigrants at the expense of it’s citizens yet when I investigate moving to another country I find I am expected to prove I can support myself, pay into their social security system (often in advance), buy my own housing and start a business or have an existing job to go to?
    In fact being British or European is a large financial hurdle if you want to live elsewhere. Funny how it always works that way isn’t it?

  12. Old Albion
    May 18, 2016

    The simple and least expensive way to deal wth the problem is to regain control of our borders. Vote ‘leave’

    1. Alan
      May 18, 2016

      But that doesn’t give us control of our borders. That depends on the subsequent negotiations, and we still don’t know what terms we are going to seek. The Leave campaign haven’t yet decided.

  13. Ex-expat Colin
    May 18, 2016

    I’m not going to listen this speech and expect to be brain battered by the BBC et al later. No…I’ll switch all comms off today I think and get some teeth pulled:

    “Driverless cars! A space port in Cornwall! The pie-in-the-sky policies of a Prime Minister paralysed by Brexit”

    1. stred
      May 18, 2016

      After reading this article about a British space port I thought there must have been some mistake. After all, even some children know that it is important to take advantage of the Earth’s spin on its axis at 1000 mph at the equator and 0 mph at the poles. For this reason Scotand is very very bad and Cornwall very bad.

      But in his speech this afternoon, which apparently some of his MPs find very amusing, he has confirmed that he supports investing in and taking civil servants time to chose the best spot for a space port. There was a Royal Society lecture for children on the subject of launching a spaceship not long ago. Before any more money is wasted, perhaps the PM and his civil servants could stop spreading doom stories about Brexit and watch it, possibly with an engineer to explain it to them.

  14. Brexit
    May 18, 2016

    JR, urgently needs help.

    We’re urgently seeking donations to allow us to continue providing punchy, well-researched facts for voters, local campaigners, and Leave spokespersons alike.

    Perhaps you’ll allow this quick appeal via your website. There’s a link for donations on our news page here: .

    1. Cheshire Girl
      May 18, 2016

      I have donated a small amount, but, as the saying goes – every little helps. ….and I wish you success with your appeal.

      1. Brexit
        May 19, 2016

        Cheshire Girl you’re a star! Thank you. It wasn’t a small amount to you or to most people. It’s a shame that campaigns cost so much money but if we win it will be worth it.

  15. Anonymous
    May 18, 2016

    Until we establish full border control we cannot plan.

    The inflow can increase at any moment and there is nothing we can do about it if it does.

    We would actually be better off without government. At least we could save on that cost if nothing else.

  16. JimS
    May 18, 2016

    Tesco most certainly has a better idea of who is coming into their stores than the government has of who is coming into the country.
    Passports have numbers. We have scanners. We have computers. Count them in, count them out. Simple?

  17. alan jutson
    May 18, 2016

    “Government thinks 64.5 million”

    “GP’s have 68.4 million registered with them.”

    Amazing that in a developed Country such as ours, the Government does not really have a clue as to what the actual size of its population really is.

    No wonder the figures and forecasts are always wrong.

    It see it was reported the other day that officials have only just found out there are hundreds of unregistered schools in the UK of which they were previously totally unaware.

    The mind boggles.

    1. Hope
      May 18, 2016

      They know, whether they want to admit it is another thing altogether. The govt might be asked what it’s doing to provide services for a much larger popultion than they declare while making cuts or working it into the doctors or police!

    2. Edward.
      May 18, 2016

      Someone, somewhere in the Home Office has a good idea of the present numbers living in this island nation.

      The Home Office, they are scared witless that the true, current population figures will out, this is one of the, perhaps the sole reason the Labour E-borders policy initiative was silently binned by Theresa May – counting people in and out would reveal the true scale of the inward flow of new arrivals.
      Be certain, the present guesstimations, figures are fiddled, in the first place all the immigration figures are based on airport arrivals – HMG hasn’t a clue as to how many arrive by sea crossing.

  18. Know-dice
    May 18, 2016

    Yesterday Aviva sent a letter out to their employees

    “the pound is already slipping, the stock market could fall steeply, interest rates could rise and the economy could go into reverse”

    Today the pound sits at 1.28 against the Euro up over yesterday’s rate, nothing to do with Brexit, more to do with normal trading

  19. Ian Wragg
    May 18, 2016

    The government is well aware how many migrants are coming. They just don’t want us to know.
    The fact that gdp rises slightly but per capita is going down speaks volumes.
    Hesletine gobbing off yesterday whilst Voteleave continue to work for the Remain side .

  20. Man of Kent
    May 18, 2016

    I listened to a whole segment on overcrowding in prisons on BBC Today.

    Not a mention of immigrant numbers and their effects on the problem.

    No mention either of the prospect of a less secure country with 75 million Turks to add to the mix.

  21. David
    May 18, 2016

    @”Some analysis which shows low paid migrants make a contribution by paying more in tax than they receive in benefits does not tell the whole story. Some of it does not even tell the whole story on tax and benefits, by leaving out Housing benefit. Relying on averages can be misleading. ”
    John you are right, in fact I would say that it is so flawed you wonder if people are trying to mislead. As only £1 in 3 of taxes goes on benefits migrants only benefit us if they pay more than 3 times what they get on benefits.
    It is very depressing that few conservative or UKIP spokesmen point out the flaws in this analysis.

  22. Guessedworker
    May 18, 2016

    Again we have a focus on the financial cost of the migrant, as if he or she had no ethnic genetic force in this world.

    For very nearly the last seven decades now, the elephant in the room labelled “Immigration Discourse” has been the English people: the very fact of us and of our natural interests and rights in the land which bears our name. At no time has the political class or any part of the liberal Establishment – the media, academy, third sector, etc – openly considered said elephant (excepting Enoch Powell, of course). The stark destiny which endless racially and ethnically alien immigration always holds for native peoples (ie, colonisation and replacement on the land), and which must and most certainly does apply to us, especially given our long-run negative fertility, is passed over as if it is somehow only moral to have no care whatsoever for ones own kind. Indeed, only wide-open contempt for that care is unquestioningly tolerated; preferably allied to denial of the very idea of an English people except as some sort of unique, capacious bag in which anybody from anywhere may be accommodated.

    How the educated class came to this literally pathological condition is well understood among thinking nationalists, among whom I count myself. Of course, we can’t tell you the whole story, because you have been trained in pavlovian fashion to exercise an hysterical hatred of certain truths and the people who communicate them. But, via the exigency of the referendum on EU membership, we are all now rather rapidly approaching a seminal moment. Regardless of result, the referendum process will leave behind it in the public mind the unequivocal conviction that an internationalist political and corporate elite is exercising power over the masses in a ruthless and most manipulative way solely for its own corrupt self-interest.

    That makes a reckoning inevitable, and it will slowly but surely materialise as the struggle for life … for very survival … of the English people, and of all Europe’s peoples beyond our shores. In this country nationalists have no power, no party, no media. You might think us irrelevant – certainly the elites think us politically defeated. But we have love and we have truth, and these are unanswerable today. They are the instinctual lingua franca of our people, and they will prove stronger – much stronger – than the petty bonds of elitism.

    etc ed

  23. bigneil
    May 18, 2016

    Endless supply of money for anyone arriving – -nothing but cuts for the people who have to pay taxes for it all. Dave and his pals will make sure THEY are ok, the rest of us are called “Jack”

    Dave’s deliberate financial (attack on ed) his OWN people – -a very evil man.

  24. turbo terrier
    May 18, 2016

    We need to ensure the right number of new homes, extra school places, GP surgery capacity, adequate water and electricity supply and the rest.

    Does the figure allow for all the costs regarding prisons and after sentance care?

    How chilling to see the turf fights within the prison walls about drug distribution involving mostly immigrants. Will our prisons change them? I think not.

    Moving and living abroad is not easy and is expensive and ther are no handouts or a free medical service. When you start working and pay into the system then after a while you start to get access to benefits usually linked to how much you have paid in.

    That is a reason that the E111 is a joke in that you can live in Spain have a property in the UK and travel back for your operations on the NHS especially if you are below retirement age.

    This country cannot carry on as is, it is totally unsustainable.

    I still find it so strange that nobody on the leave side is championing the unsigned off audits. If the books were open for inspection by all those who are interested then maybe just maybe it would do away with all the buzz words designed to present calm and belief in the system, people could be then held accountable and responsible. Business has to work with signed off legal audits, if not how can the next budgets be assessed? It does beg the question if the previous audit has not been signed off is the next budget actually legal? Why cannot governments? With the enlarging of the EU it will only get worse.

    1. Miami.mode
      May 18, 2016

      Good point there, tt, about living abroad and popping back to the UK for health or other reasons. A check on passports in and out would highlight possible abuse.

  25. Bert Young
    May 18, 2016

    As the most densely populated country in Europe we cannot view migration like others . Land space has a critical bearing on housing cost and availability not to mention the congestion on roads ; these are critical reasons why every migrant who is allowed into this country must have a job and provide a needed skill .

    In South Oxfordshire where I live the extra housing requirements that have been indicated are practically impossible to achieve ; nearby Didcot has grown enormously in the past 10 years and has now reached saturation point – its schools are hardly able to cope and parking is a great difficulty ; bus services are non-existent . I have recently completed a “Planning Scheme” format that solicited views on housing , schools , surgeries and transport ; the results have yet to be published but the people I have spoken to all emphasised the impossibility that the extra housing posed . Before I can exit on to the main road from the hamlet where I live , I sometimes have to wait for over 10 minutes to go and collect my child from her school .

    Oxford was never designed for expansion – its layout and the proximity of historical buildings has meant development outside its boundaries into the relatively small area of surrounding green belt . Over the years the erosion of this space has now reached a critical stage and the technical expansion of the resources the University can continue to provide is severely handicapped ; what is the solution ?. Migration numbers are a starting point .

    1. stred
      May 18, 2016

      England and Holland are the most desley populated countries in Europe and most of the world. In the UK the Town and Country Planning Act has been a success in one important respect- the preservation of the countryside. Bill Bryson in his latest book Little Dribbling describes the result in his own country of origin when the sprawl is not controlled. We have already started to bbuild on the Green Belt as the population has risen from 50 to 64.4 or perhaps 68.3m here at any one time +tourists and others.

      So, with the little building land available it was a surprise to hear that the housing minister thinks bungalows are a good idea, a uniquely low density and often ridiculous form of housing. It is not actually necessary for old folks to have ground floor access as there are things called lifts. Well designed flats can include terraces if the occupants are desparate to grow plants. They can even have communal meeting areas which are a feature of sheltered housing.

      Yesterday my trip home passed a new development by our local authority for retired people and others. This consisted of 55 bungalows and they all hade a high roof, taller than the ground storey. Perhaps the minister’s wish to waste precious land in London has encouraged the council to follow his advice.

  26. Denis Cooper
    May 18, 2016

    My foremost objection to mass immigration into the UK is simply that the great majority of the established body of UK citizens do not want it.

    Objectively they may be right to hold that view, or they may be wrong, but the fact is that they oppose the mass immigration which has been imposed upon them by a small minority – in the same way as they oppose the further EU integration which is favoured by a small minority, very often the same people who favour mass immigration.

    In both cases it is a question of democracy, indeed whether we even have a functioning democracy rather than a rigged system designed to frustrate the will of the people when
    it is in opposition to the will of what is in effect an oligarchic minority.

    Personally I believe they are right to oppose mass immigration, because when everything is taken into account it is generally of great benefit to many of the immigrants but damages the interests of the established population.

    If this was understood and yet nevertheless the majority still wanted to welcome large numbers of people from abroad, with the prospect that the new arrivals would join them as citizens with the same rights and duties, then that would be a different matter.

    1. Hope
      May 18, 2016

      As an EU commissioner said when asked why she was acting against the national public’s wishes- it is not their decision it.

    2. Anonymous
      May 18, 2016

      Denis – On this issue the British Government has been proven to be neutered by the EU.

      The referendum was demanded because of no other than the immigration issue and the PM had to offer it to win votes back from UKIP. (Imagine his horror when he won a majority and actually had to honour his pledge !)

      I’m actually grateful for the migration crisis as it has highlighted the real problem – that is our complete loss of democracy to the EU, proven by the rejection of Mr Cameron’s demands on migrant benefits, despite an overwhelming desire in this country to have the curbed.

  27. Shieldsman
    May 18, 2016

    When did David Cameron decide to campaign to remain in the EU? Possibly even before he wrote his letter to Donald Tusk, his confidence trick was already well advanced in the planning.

    I did wonder why Vote.leave keeps missing the target, one almost wonders whether Gove and Johnson are frightened of losing their positions in the Conservative Party (demoted and deselected).

    Cameron DID NOT reform the EU, I think we have further proof of that here: –
    27 April 2016 A critical view of the EU deal, from Germany to Britain, By German professors group

    The EU is facing two unprecedented crises: a never-ending currency and economic crisis, and an unprecedented migration crisis which threatens the foundations of the welfare state and the long-term social stability of its member states. And, as so often, when the EU is facing problems created by premature integration, and no one knows what is to be done, Brussels, Paris and Berlin are responding not with plans for less, but for more EU integration. This is the message of the so-called Five Presidents’ Report which sets out the agenda for full-scale eurozone integration with important implications for the EU as a whole.

    In the 1990s Britain, wisely decided not to join the common currency and she never became part of the Schengen ‘open borders’ regime. David Cameron has long called for fundamental reform of the EU. In February, with considerable political skill, he negotiated an EU-UK Agreement which confirms Britain’s opt-outs under the existing Treaties. In the circumstances this is probably the best deal that could be secured. But can the EU-UK agreement be the nucleus of much needed wider reform within the EU? Here we have doubts.

    There are four principal areas to the UK-EU Agreement.
    First, the provisions on economic governance and competitiveness. They generally do not go beyond vague commitments and otherwise merely confirm the UK’s non-participation in the eurozone banking union and future eurozone bail-outs. The Agreement also provides some assurance to the United Kingdom that further eurozone integration will take account of the special position of non-eurozone EU members, although, in turn, the United Kingdom agrees to sincere cooperation in facilitating further integration within the eurozone. As for the promises to improve economic competitiveness and reduce regulatory burdens, one only has to look back at the launch of the EU’s Lisbon Agenda in 2000 which was aimed to transform the EU into “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion by 2010.” As the year 2010 approached, references to the Agenda were progressively expunged from EU documents and websites, and it now primarily survives on Wikipedia and in fading memories. First, the provisions on economic governance and competitiveness. They generally do not go beyond vague commitments and otherwise merely confirm the UK’s non-participation in the eurozone banking union and future eurozone bail-outs. The Agreement also provides some assurance to the United Kingdom that further eurozone integration will take account of the special position of non-eurozone EU members, although, in turn, the United Kingdom agrees to sincere cooperation in facilitating further integration within the eurozone.
    (This is a reference to the Clause inserted in the February agreement: “(UK) will not create obstacles to but facilitate such further deepening (economic and monetary union) while this process will, conversely, respect the rights and competences of non participating member states”)

    Second, there is the symbolically important declaration that the UK is not committed to ‘ever closer union’. However, there is not a single important judgment where the European Court of Justice has relied on this formula as the exclusive legal basis for driving EU integration, and it is difficult to see how, in practice, the UK could in future escape the uniform application of future judicial activism in the EU except in areas where the UK already enjoys pre-existing opt-outs.

    Third, the Agreement envisages a legislative ‘red card’ for national parliaments. This is an innovation of potentially wider significance. However, it would only work if there were a mass revolt of national parliaments against their own majority governments.

    Finally, the new ‘emergency brake’ would limit access to welfare benefits by EU migrants for up to four years for individuals and seven years in total. The ‘emergency brake’ could potentially save the UK Treasury a few hundred million pounds in total, but there will be administration costs and the net benefits are difficult to quantify at this stage. Further, there is an open question whether time-limited differential access to in-work benefits would, in the long term, significantly reduce EU immigration into Britain. Most EU migrants come to work and not, primarily, to claim benefits in Britain. Moreover, once non-EU immigrants are naturalised in Germany and elsewhere, there is nothing to prevent them from exercising their right to free movement and cross the Channel legally, not illegally. Thus, even if the United Kingdom is not part of the EU’s common asylum policy, no country will be able to escape its consequences.

    We believe that the EU needs the United Kingdom and her voice of reason, all the more at present when almost everyone appears to have quit reason. Whether Britain needs the EU just as much, is a choice for the British people. 27 April The Agreement cannot do so because it does little to reform the EU and does not exempt Britain from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and the uniform application of its pro-Union approach to judicial decision-making.
    (They are being generous, it did nothing to reform the EU).
    Authors and signatories:
    Gunnar Beck, Barrister (EU law), Temple, London
    Charles Blankart, professor (economics), Berlin
    Gerd Habermann, professor (economics), University of Potsdam
    Hans-Olaf Henkel, MEP and former president of the German Federation of Industry
    Dietrich Murswiek, professor (public and EU law), Freiburg
    Alfred Schüller, professor (economics), Marburg
    Joachim Starbatty, MEP and professor (economics), University of Tübingen
    Roland Vaubel, professor (economics), University of Mannheim
    This article is an exclusive for CapX, and is available for syndication. Please contact to discuss details.

    Look at the date 27 April, has it been hiding somewhere?
    The significance of this paper is that is signed by a Barrister (EU Law) and a professor (public and EU law), which says:
    But it is not a choice between change and no change. Rather, it is a choice between leaving or remaining in an EU that would remain committed to further political integration, and there is nothing in the EU-UK Agreement that can offer the UK any permanent legal safeguards against being dragged along the path of further integration albeit with provisos and reluctantly. The Agreement cannot do so because it does little to reform the EU and does not exempt Britain from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and the uniform application of its pro-Union approach to judicial decision-making.

    This blows Cameron’s claim of having reformed the EU and his other claims right out of the water.
    The agreement merely re- states the statis quo that existed prior to Cameron’s Grand Tour. The ’emergency brake’ is unlikely to be passed by the European Parliament, MEP’s have already said they will vote against it.

    Come on wake up Cummings,Elliott and Vote.leave.

  28. Denis Cooper
    May 18, 2016

    Here’s some nonsense which has arrived in my Inbox this morning:

    “Refugees will give EU economy huge boost, says NGO”

    Of course the first question is why the Germans are so keen to share out this boon across the EU, with the EU Commission threatening to fine countries which are so short-sighted that they decline to take their hugely beneficial quota of the illegal immigrants invited into the EU as a whole, but in particular Germany, by the German Chancellor.

    I note this:

    “Drafted by the EU commission’s former economic adviser Philippe Legrain, the report draws its conclusions, in part, from calculations by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).”

    And this:

    “Legrain, who is also a senior visiting fellow at the London School of Economics, says refugees should be seen as an opportunity.”

    He is also the author of pro-immigration articles in, guess where, the Guardian, such as this in April 2008 dismissing out of hand a report from a House of Lords committee:

    “Since the old duffers can’t work it out, here is a quick and easy guide to the economic benefits to Britain of allowing in foreign workers.”

    “Britain urgently needs a heavyweight, economically rigorous report into the economics of migration, along the lines of the Stern report on the economics of climate change. The House of Lords report is certainly not it.”

    But of course the need he perceived was only for a report confirming that “Britain benefits hugely from the contribution of migrants, economically and socially”.

  29. majorfrustration
    May 18, 2016

    Putting to one side all the issues involved with the UK leaving the EU would you JR please get all the Leave factions in one room, sit them down and give their leaders the gypsy’s warning – pull together, no silly talk and take on the arguments posed by the Remain, BBC IMF etc. camps, simple – otherwise the Remainers will win. There also needs to be a rebuttal unit so that the other side appreciates that it cannot get away with misleading comments. The Referendum is for the Leavers to loose

  30. lojolondon
    May 18, 2016

    John, the official figures are deeply troubling, and manifestly dishonest. Very few migrants bring their own jobs with them, and while that is the case, as long as there is even one single unemployed British person, every additional migrant will put somebody local out of a job. They should add the cost of that British person’s unemployment to the cost of migration, and still it will not come close.

  31. ChrisS
    May 18, 2016

    Never mind that it’s what the overwhelming majority of voters want to see happen, these figures only go to prove that whoever succeeds Cameron simply HAS to get immigration under control by whatever means necessary and whatever the outcome of the referendum.

    In the last few weeks of the campaign we need to ensure that there is a calm and reasoned debate on immigration. If presented properly, the figures will speak for themselves.

    It is the single most important area of Brexit policy that is directly in tune with the wishes of voters and one in which Cameron has demonstrably broken successive election pledges.

    Crucially, he has also totally failed to convince anyone that his renegotiation will do anything to reduce the numbers coming here. On the contrary, anyone who knows about the introduction of the living wage last month knows it will stimulate many more to come here from Eastern and Southern Europe.

    Nigel Farage once said that he would rather see a slightly lower rate of economic growth if that were the price necessary to reduce immigration. I agree with him and I suspect so would most indigenous British citizens.

    1. Anonymous
      May 18, 2016

      Chris – are you joking ?

      ‘Whoever succeeds Cameron has to get immigration under control’

      If Remain succeeds then forget it.

      If the result is to Remain then the referendum will have been the very last vote of self-determining significance that we’ll have.

      Thereafter the EU is going to shaft us – having been given a mandate to shaft us.

      Those who lost must surely then campaign to have the UK Government abolished – as it will be of absolutely no worth.

  32. Mick
    May 18, 2016

    Sorry for this but a little off topic, but just watching the state opening of parliament but did anyone else notice the full eu bias BBC cut the Queen being welcome to the house by Mr Graylin and Mr Gove mind you they did pan to the flag, bias in its exstrime

    May 18, 2016

    Info on costs: necessary for a government.

    There are the official reasons why people will vote LEAVE or REMAIN on 23rd June in the EU Referendum. The official reasons why some or many will not vote.
    All reliant on people in opinion polls telling the truth or thinking they are telling the truth or deliberately telling a lie or not answering at all.

    What will be the UNofficial reasons? Reasons our sub-conscious minds will dictate and, then put a socially acceptable gloss on the decision based on…. “Information”?

    In our pc world glued with academic contempt for human emotional decision making we may never know.

    The number of persons voting LEAVE is one thing. There could be tragedy ahead for all of us a victory for REMAIN stamps on too many British hearts. Democracy best works on paper…in an extreme manifestation only works on paper.
    How many British will actually think, away from cameras and in public “ahh well” if a democratic vote giving our country away is successful?

  34. Mark
    May 18, 2016

    I recently found a study by the CML whose principal aim was looking at first time buyers, but it included a section on recent migrant housing based on 2001 census data and 2005 Labour Force Survey data. Almost certainly it excluded students, almost all of whom rent or live in university provided accommodation. Of those surveyed, about 1 in 6 were in public sector housing, and 1 in 8 were buying a home, 1 in 30 bought a home for cash, and almost all the rest were renting privately (1 in 20 were living rent free). It’s clear that the BTL sector is dominant in housing migrants. How much of the ~£9bn p.a. in housing benefit paid to BTL tenants (and thence to landlords) is for migrants is harder to ascertain.

    We also should not forget that we have Polish shops because we have a large number of Polish immigrants who like to import goods they are familiar with (this also applies to many other foreign communities) – migrants tend to have a much higher propensity to buy imported items. Also impacting our balance of payments is the large sum of remittances by migrants to their home countries.

  35. Dennis
    May 18, 2016

    I suppose Hitler did want to unify Europe, under his control of course, in his way, so Boris was right although a silly comment.

    Does Heseltine think that as Hitler loved dogs, all dog lovers are thereby tainted? Obviously not so why is he so upset about Boris?

    1. Lindsay McDougall
      May 19, 2016

      Boris’s point is that ALL attempts to create a political union in Europe have ended in failure. Why should this one be any different?

      The blueprint out there is the 5 Presidents Report. It starts out by saying that it only applies to the EuroZone. But when you get into the guts of the report, it is clear that it will impact on all EU Member States. Indeed, there are one or two actions that all EU Member States will be required to take.

      If you combine the 5 Presidents Report with the Lisbon Treaty, which vastly extended EU areas of competence and QMV, and which explicitly authorised 3 types of military between Member States, there you have your European Federal SuperState.

      If the Remain side wins narrowly, it will not settle the issue for a generation, because David Chamberlain-Cameron has not even mentioned this issue. Mark my words, if Remain wins then the EC, Germany and France will produce a draft Federal Treaty within a month.

      A question for Mr Redwood: Why are you wasting your time in parliament voting for this ragbag of a trendy people’s Queen’s Speech? Why not spend some time in parliament asking awkward questions and voting down bad bills, and spend the rest of your time campaigning to leave?

  36. BOF
    May 18, 2016

    Thanks, Active Citizen, Beecee and Ian Moore for your accurate comments.

    I am just a foot soldier in this campaign but there is a serious lack of direction and co-ordination from the top. If somebody does not get an immediate grip it will be an uphill struggle all the way.

    In all interviews, debates and press statements, there should be someone at the top to keep the direction focussed and positive. Also to make sure that the right people are in right place at the right time, SAYING THE RIGHT THING!

    1. Anonymous
      May 18, 2016

      BOF – It’s not that easy. The UKIP member on BBC1 today was superb but it was the usual BBC set up:

      – one Brexiteer
      – one presenter
      – one Remainer
      – one ‘independent’ arbiter in the form of an energy ‘expert’ (seeing as the topic was energy)

      Both sides had their say and then the ‘expert’ arbitrated as to who was correct with the final say on the matter.

      As usual the ‘expert’ found in favour of Remain.

      For true impartiality the opposing speakers should have their say, argue a bit, and for it to be left at that for the viewer to way up.

      All the ‘expert’ said was “prices will go up if we leave” without anything to back it. May we know who he was, how the BBC selected him and whether he stands for an organisation in the pay of the EU ?

      If we are going to have experts then why just one ? Why not a whole panel ?

      Project Fear has turned into Project Terror which means to me that – actually – the Brexit side have been doing a darn good job, considering.

      1. Mark
        May 18, 2016

        I think we’re making a huge mess of energy policy in trying to out-green the EU. Unfortunately, I don’t see that changing if we get out – at least until the blackouts start becoming a bit too regular.

  37. Atlas
    May 18, 2016

    Slightly off topic John,

    I may be behind the times but I only just discovered that

    Brexit The Movie

    is on Youtube – and a worthwhile watch to all concerned giving some content to this Referendum! Perhaps you could give us your opinion of it please?

    Reply Well worth watching

    1. alan jutson
      May 18, 2016


      More than just worth viewing is the importance of sharing it with many others, especially those who are as yet undecided.

      We need to get this film going viral.

      1. Atlas
        May 18, 2016


        Indeed. I’ve already shared it with others.

    May 18, 2016

    Many migrants first and second generation here, have a luxury denied in practical terms to most British people. They can at any time, up sticks, and go live with Ma, Pa, brother or sister in say Romania or Latvia without money or food even for one single day.
    The vast majority of we non-migrants have a fundamentally different stake in the UK. It is a fixed stake. immovable. Solid as a rock.Attached by monetary and emotional chains to the tiller as the ship of state whatever the storm approaching. There’s… is not to reason why.

  39. Denis Cooper
    May 18, 2016

    What strikes me about both the EU issue and the connected immigration issue is that they are primarily political, and in general economic aspects only come into it through attempts to justify or refute pre-existing ideological positions; and in general again the economic analyses usually fail to do either, that is justify or refute, with any degree of reliability; moreover they often expose the truth that the economic aspects one way or the other are actually pretty trivial in the greater scheme of things; but nonetheless the results of those studies are then repeatedly cited, but distorted and abused, for the original political purposes.

    So we are told that the EU Single Market is hugely important and it would be catastrophic to no longer be part of it, when it was originally projected to provide a one-off lift to GDP of about 5% but in reality has probably only achieved about 1%, which we could have got anyway by being a bit more patient and waiting for six months until the UK economy had grown naturally by about that amount.

    And we are told that we would really be missing out if we left the EU and so were not part of the wonderful TTIP, which would “turbo-charge” the economy as Cameron told us, but is actually projected to be worth just 0.6% of GDP on the government’s own numbers and could potentially neuter our parliamentary democracy.

    And so it is with immigration, where those who are in favour of mass immigration, and it happens also in favour of the EU, tell us, for example:

    “Britain benefits hugely from the contribution of migrants, economically and socially”

    when at least in the short to medium term the economic effects are very marginal either way, while the social effects range from more or less OK to quite disastrous.

  40. LondonBob
    May 18, 2016

    As Mr Trump has shown immigration is a vote winner, need to deploy it to win the referendum.

    May 18, 2016

    I see the Leave Campaign in the Electoral Commission’s Voting Guide didn’t waste a single penny employing a graphic designer or experienced publicist before dishing out its leaflet.

  42. Man of Kent
    May 18, 2016

    Quite agree .

    My wife could do better -as she does for Chuch events publicity !

  43. oldtimer
    May 18, 2016

    A very long but valuable comment by Jesse Norman MP can be found here:

    I think that Denis Cooper will be interested as well as our host and others

    1. Denis Cooper
      May 19, 2016

      Yes, thanks, I read that with interest.

  44. Lindsay McDougall
    May 19, 2016

    To stress what ought to be obvious, immigrants brought in to look after our aging population will also get old themselves in due course.

    My take on immigration is this; that there is unfortunately something in this climate m’larkey and zero world population growth would be a good idea. Only nation states controlling immigration drastically have any chance of bringing this about. etc ed

    For what it is worth, my immigration policy is more or less zero immigration (especially of imported brides and grooms) etc ed

    One reason that I have advocated a rapid Brexit is that I want this problem dealt with now. We can be fully divorced from the EU by April 2017. I’ve presented the schedule to do this several times already. If anybody wants me to display it again, I shall.

  45. a-tracy
    May 20, 2016

    The claims by the Remain camp are regularly that our big influx of migrants are paying their way in taxation.

    So why isn’t the UK government spending this massive influx of money on the services that are being consumed? This isn’t an EU spend it is a UK spend. If we are gaining so much Mr Cameron then why is the NHS England in a massive deficit?
    “unprecedented deficit as a “classic symptom” of skyrocketing demand with just a 1% increase in NHS funding.”

    Hold on we’ve apparently got a skyrocketing benefit to our economy of immigrants paying much more than their own way. Paying much bigger contributions to national insurance so why hasn’t NHS spending gone up by more than 1%?

    Remain must tell us what staying in, is going to mean and why aren’t Leave pushing for this, why aren’t we seeing anything of Nigel Farage on our TV screens? Is Boris just someone put in to make a fool of Leave? Why didn’t the Conservatives put forward Daniel Hannan to debate on behalf of Leave. Anyone talking sense about Leave hasn’t been seen on Channel 4 news yet we see just about everyone’s else’s voice, last night a young 25 year old asylum seeker was moaning about not being given a home! Who is giving our home grown 25 year old children a home in this Country when they move to find work, I’ve news for him NO ONE they have to earn their own money and pay their own rent or they have to share with four to seven friends.

    I don’t really understand the EU either, why would they want to encourage their youngest, brightest, most ambitious (who are the immigrants we are told we are getting) to move around freely and take their energy, skills and personal resilience resources from their home countries leaving them with the oldest, weakest and less ambitious? I met a Polish nurse recently and I asked her if she plans to go back after living here for five years, she said no. I asked if her teenage children wanted to go back to Poland when their education finished in the UK, she said no none of them. When we start hoovering up their nurses, doctors, dentists, opticians etc. how will they cope, or are we just being fed lie after lie about the incoming skilled workforce? You can’t play this both sides at the same time.

    What will the English school population look like in ten years time if we remain? How many starting High school in 2026 will have British born parents? What is the figure in September 2016 and what was it in September 2006. How does this compare with Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland who are in favour of staying and are very nationalistic Countries.

Comments are closed.