Four out of five migrants 'take more from economy than they put back'

[ShadesWolf]

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/08/migrant280806_450x395.jpg


Four out of five migrants take more from the British economy than they contribute, a report has warned today.

The analysis demolishes the Government's key claim that migrants pay more in taxes than they take back in public services.

Instead, a small number of very high earning foreign workers are masking the fact that 80 per cent of immigrants are taking more out of the economy than they contribute over their lifetimes.

Only one in five is earning the £27,000 a year required to make a positive contribution over the course of their lifetime. It means that, if they settle here, they will cost the taxpayer money.

The report's author, Migrationwatch UK, said it proved the case for only highly-skilled economic migrants - such as doctors and engineers - to be allowed to settle in Britain.

It heaps even greater pressure on Home Secretary John Reid to call an end to Labour's 'open door' migration policy.

Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman, said: 'The Government and its supporters repeatedly trot out favourable looking statistics which seek to give the impression that immigration in general has a very positive effect on the UK economy.

‘The reality is that immigrants are extremely varied. A minority are highly skilled and highly paid but a large majority will end up as a cost to the taxpayer if they settle here permanently.'

The Government calculates adult migrants make-up 10.6 per cent of the population, but contribute 10.9 per cent of the country's Gross Domestic Product - its total economic output.

This is the basis for its claim they make a 'small but positive' contribution to the economy.

But, using the Government's own Labour Force Survey, Migrationwatch says this calculation fails to show the full picture.

To make a positive contribution to GDP over the course of a person's lifetime, they must earn £27,000 a year.

This is the equivalent of paying £7,600 a year in income tax and other taxation, and would cover the costs of healthcare and other public services into retirement.

Only 20 per cent of migrants achieve this. But, many of those that do - such as financiers, engineers and NHS consultants - earn large amounts of money.

This makes it appear that migrants in general are making a positive contribution to GDP when, in fact, they are only a small minority of the total number.

Some eight out of ten earn less than £27,000, with a large number - including many eastern Europeans - on the minimum wage of less than £10,000 a year.

Britons are in the same position, with eight of ten of those born here not earning £27,000 and higher earners paying the majority of the tax bill.

But the difference is that the government can choose which work-related migrants are allowed to settle in the UK, and therefore has the option to select only those who will provide a boost to the economy.

Migrationwatch says that, as a result, only those earning more than £27,000 - and who are filling a vacancy that cannot be taken by an EU citizen - should be allowed to settle here by the Government's new advisory panel on immigration.

The panel, announced by John Reid last month, is to set an 'optimum level' of economic migration to he UK when it finally meets in two years' time. Any limit will exclude asylum seekers, and those given permission to live here for family reasons.

Sir Andrew said: 'To most people the measures we are suggesting are simple common sense. This research demonstrates once more that there is no economic case for massive immigration into the UK.

'The Home Secretary is right to say that we need to balance economic gain against social costs.

'The social costs of the present massive levels of immigration, including their impact on infrastructure and public services, far outweigh any possible benefit.'

The Government is powerless to restrict the number of migrants moving to Britain from within the EU, including eastern Europe. More than 600,000 have flooded in from the former Eastern Bloc since the controversial expansion of the EU two years ago.

Up to 300,000 Romanians and Bulgarians are expected to follow when they join next year, unless the Government restricts their right to work here.

The study will add further fuel to the immigration debate, which has led to demands from former Labour Ministers to limit the number of new arrivals.

Ex-Minister Frank Field said that, even without any new arrivals, there are not enough houses in the UK to adequately house the current population.

Former Home Office Minister John Denham said that Britain was already struggling to cope with record levels of immigration and was not ready for fresh waves.

The Conservatives have called for restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians. The Government has hinted limits could be imposed, but is yet to reach a firm decision.

A Home Office spokesman said it could not comment on the report in detail, as it had not yet seen it.

But he added the contribution made by migrants to British life could not be measured simply in terms of economic output.

It added a new points-based entry system for economic migrants would take into account factors such as salary, and whether an applicant is highly-skilled.



And with Bulgaria and Romania about to join, how many more free-loaders are LABOUR going to let into our overcrowded land. I wonder how much more Tony and good old Gordon will put up taxes to pay for them :no:

[Tribesman]

Shocking foriegners . kick them out now .
Concerned of Milton Keynes .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: you gotta just love the Mail .

[Papewaio]

Well my brother is working in the UK and is a foreign born ... he is earning greater then 60k pounds so I guess he ain't part of the 'issue'.

But the question is, is it the fault of the foreign born that they are working harder for less and hence paying less tax? Or is it the fault of the locals wanting cheaper goods and paying less to companies which in turn also want to make as large a profit as possible and pay wages as cheaply as possible?

The other side is, what if all the foreign born employees had the qualifications in the top 20%? Would you then moan about all the top jobs being filled by foreigners while the locals sweep streets, clean sewers, cook and be teachers ~;) then?

[English assassin]

Britons are in the same position, with eight of ten of those born here not earning £27,000 and higher earners paying the majority of the tax bill.

Well I never knew that. Bloody freeloaders. They should all be sent home.

Seriously though, you'd think the 20% of us who are paying over the odds would get something back wouldn't you, nothing big, nothing embarrassing, just a little thank you from our skiving fellow countrymen? Something like a free go in a Tornado jet once in a while, or maybe a special higher rate taxpayer card that allows you, say, to borrow more than the usual number of library books, or to commit a small crime or two for free?

[Al Khalifah]

As long as we are in the EU, there's nothing we can do about it. They're only doing what we let them. This is Britain - the supposedly Eurosceptic member of the EU that doesn't pull its weight and isn't entitled to its measly rebate.

The rest of Europe needs to start pulling its weight and stop expecting Britain to be the babysitter. Start protecting your borders and stop letting the vagrants from your country coming to ours to sponge. If not, then don't whinge when we ask for a little of the money we pump into the EU budget back.

[Duke of Gloucester]

I can't decide whether the author genuinely does not understand ecconomics or is deliberately misrepresenting data to make a point.

There is a difference between contributing to the ecconomy and making a net contribution to the exchequer. Even then the £27000 figure is misleading, because it is based on averages. Even if you earn £60 000, if you end up needing expenisve medical treatment, you might cost more than you pay in tax. However if you earn less than £27000 but spend a lot on cigarettes and alcohol you may give Gordon a lot in indirect taxation. However this is not the same as contributing (or not) to "the ecconomy" or GDP. Anyone who works or spends does this.

[Silver Rusher]

And with Bulgaria and Romania about to join, how many more free-loaders are LABOUR going to let into our overcrowded land. I wonder how much more Tony and good old Gordon will put up taxes to pay for them :no:
Didn't Labour say they wouldn't allow migrants from Bulgaria and Romania into the country?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Utterly ridiculous Daily Mail nonsense.

Shadeswolf, you would do well to experiment with other habits than your beloved Mail quoting Migrationwatch (the barely numerate wing of the BNP). Try, for a change, most business leaders.

Maybe smoke a bit of the Independent, for example. Just don't inhale.

Business Leaders seek 'unlimited immigration' from new EU States (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1222597.ece).

Business leaders seek 'unlimited immigration' from new EU states
By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent
Published: 30 August 2006
The leaders of Britain's biggest businesses employing millions of people have called on the Government to allow unlimited immigration from Bulgaria and Romania when the two former Eastern Bloc states join the European Union next year.

They said any break in the "open door" policy that has seen hundreds of thousands of migrants from Poland and other eastern European countries come to Britain would be a major mistake. The business leaders have put their names to a statement issued by the Business for New Europe Group (BNEG), a pressure group calling for further integration.

Their support for a continued influx of workers will create a fresh headache for the Government, which is struggling to contain a political rebellion, and threatens to split the business community.

Five of the group's advisory council, including the UK heads of Sainsbury, the supermarket giant, Centrica, which owns British Gas, and Merrill Lynch, the Wall Street investment bank, have put their names to the letter.

But it is understood to have the support of other members of the council that numbers the heads of Carphone Warehouse, Alliance Boots, the high street chemists, the oil giant BP and the power company National Grid as members.

The BNEG's statement said: "If Bulgaria and Romania join the EU at the beginning of next year, the UK should continue with its open door policy.

"A so-called pause in migration from these countries would be tantamount to a reversal of policy and could work against Britain's interests."

The leaders criticised Government ministers for "equivocating" in the face of "scare stories" in the right-wing media about a flood of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants. "The simple fact is that workers from other European countries come to the UK because there are jobs," the business leaders said. "It is a cause for support, not retrenchment.

"We believe that in reaching its decision the UK Government should be guided both by economic reason and by recent historical experience."

The intervention comes at an awkward time for the Cabinet, which is moving towards controls on immigration in the face of pressure from the Conservatives.

Last week, Damian Green, the shadow Immigration minister, said the Government had to learn the lesson of the "unprecedented numbers" who arrived in the UK after the last EU expansion in 2004. The Government had forecast tens of thousands of migrants rather than the 600,000 who have come in since 2004.

Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has said immigration from Romania and Bulgaria would be "properly controlled" when the two countries join the EU next year.

Ed Balls, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said yesterday that the Government wanted "managed" immigration rather than an "open-door" policy when more countries were admitted to the EU. "We've seen some real contributions to our labour market from, for example, young Polish workers coming to meet skills shortages in Britain," he told the BBC. "At the same time we're going to have to look very carefully at these issues in the next few months because we need to make sure we continue with a disciplined and managed approach."

A spokeswoman for the Home Office said the Government would make a decision on the "level of access" workers from Romania and Bulgaria would have to the labour market after the European Council meets in October. "That will be based on an objective assessment of factors such as the British economy, including the labour market, the impact of previous enlargements and the position of other member states."

But Roger Carr, the chairman of Centrica, said ministers could not pick and choose which elements of an open-market system they liked. "It is essential to harvest the upside and manage the downside on the side of market freedom not protectionism," he said.

However, their support for the BNEG statement puts them in opposition to most of the mainstream business organisations. The CBI, the largest employers' group, said immigrants from Poland had benefited the economy by filling skills gaps in areas such as building and catering. But it said it was essential the Government reflected on the experience since the 2004 enlargement that added 10 new members before deciding on its approach to Romanians and Bulgarians.

Susan Anderson, the CBI's director of human resources policy, told The Independent: "Let's be clear, it's not a question of if the UK should open to Bulgaria and Romania [but] it is right that the UK takes the time to reflect on the earlier experiences and debates how and when to welcome the next phase of EU accession countries."

David Frost, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said that the recent rise in unemployment to a six-year high was flashing a warning signal about the impact of migration of the indigenous workforce. "We have seen unemployment rise in the UK and clearly we don't want to be in a position where we are seeing migrant labour coming in and getting the jobs and supporting the great number of local people have not got jobs," he said.

"That's not a recipe for success. It will not be a cohesive society." He blamed the Government for failing to provide an education system that enabled Britons to find work in the modern labour market.

A raft of economic reports has shown that immigration has boosted the UK economy by about £2.5bn a year. Last week Grant Thornton, the business advisers, said immigration had added between 0.5 and 1 percentage points to growth last year, without which Gordon Brown would have failed to hit his targets. Mr Balls said the influx of workers to meet skill gaps had helped keep a lid on wage growth that in turn had helped keep interest rates low.

Martin Sorrell, the chief executive of WPP, the world's largest advertising business, said the 2004 enlargement had been a "great success". "The Polish plumber has become a much-loved feature of British life," he said. "The migration has plugged gaps in the labour market and boosted economic growth."

Anthony Ullmann, the chairman of BNEG's entrepreneurs' council, said free movement of labour within the UK had been a "huge boon". "It has allowed people from the UK to seek opportunities in Europe, whilst at the same time giving our labour markets a timely boost," he said.

Immigration: The facts

600,000 people from eastern Europe have successfully applied for the right to work in the United Kingdom over the past two years. This means that they now account for 2 per cent of the country's 30 million strong workforce

62 per cent of the new workers have come from Poland

£2.54bn is contributed to the economy annually by eastern European immigrants in the UK

0.5-1 per cent of economic growth in the United Kingdom in 2005 and 2006 has been contributed by migrants

70,000 migrant workers help with harvesting farms, according to the National Farmers Union

10 per cent of employees on Britain's building sites are from overseas - making a total labour force of up to 100,000 workers

80 per cent of new migrants are working people between the ages of 18 and 35. This offsets the tendency for the country's population to age, addressing the difficulties in providing for an ageing population. There is evidence that National Insurance contributions would have to be higher under lower migration scenarios

250,000 jobs a year are created by the UK economy. The economy continues to grow only because there is the population to carry such continued growth

31 per cent of doctors working in hospitals and general practices throughout the UK are migrants

13 per cent of nurses who are working in the UK were born abroad

12.5 cent of teaching staff working in schools across the UK are non-British

70 per cent of catering jobs in London are filled by migrant workers

13 per cent higher average wages earned by migrant workers (compared to workers who are not migrants) suggests that migrant workers are more highly skilled and more productive



Most migrant workers are young, hard-working, literate and numerate and stay only for a few years. Thus they contribute a lot in taxation, but take very little in health care and practically nothing from pensions.

Give up the Daily Mail habit. Just say no. :smile:

[Brenus]

I work in England. I am a foreigner. I paid more to England than I cost. AND I have to heard every day on radio how smart are the English going to Belgium or France for dental surgery or others operation which take 9 months for the NHS to perform. No speaking about English buying houses in Spain…:dizzy2:
Now, if England allowed a massive influx of immigrants it is because the money. Not for the natives, mind you, but for the “economy”, meaning for people making money on the sweat of others.:laugh4:

[Moros]

Let's vote Norsefire!

[Tribesman]

I can't decide whether the author genuinely does not understand ecconomics or is deliberately misrepresenting data to make a point.

It is the Mail Duke , so you are probably right on both counts .


Shadeswolf, you would do well to experiment with other habits than your beloved Mail quoting Migrationwatch (the barely numerate wing of the BNP).
Oh my , the Mail spouting crap from dubious sources , its just like the 30's all over again .:no:
Call out the blue-rinse brigade .

[mystic brew]

I can't decide whether the author genuinely does not understand ecconomics or is deliberately misrepresenting data to make a point.


Good post.

And good point. And i've seen and posted figures here from the ONS that paint a very different picture.

But we should remember this is Migrationwatch UK talking, and this may be an independent body, but they are FAR from unbiased. Look at the founders, funders and fighters they employ in the media.
I'm seriously chary about accepting anything this lot have to say on trust

[Crazed Rabbit]

Banquo's Ghost, there are some big business leaders in the US who turn a blind eye to illegal imigration and want the feds to continue doing so, because they can get dirt cheap labor.

As for arguments that a person's contribution to the economy cannot merely be measured in how much they make. That is true, and it is also true that the money the gov't takes to pay people has a greater net loss effect on the economy than just the monetary value of taxes.

I.e., for every $1 of tax, $x are lost because the people cannot spend the money the government taxes, which would have increased the economy.

Of course, the exact figures would be troublesome to calculate, but it can be assumed that many immigrants are a drain on society. Overall? It seems likely, given the low skilled immigrants and welfare state. To me, it seems silly to give welfare to immigrants at all. After all, they had a choice whether or not to immigrate.
:balloon2:

Crazed Rabbit

[Banquo's Ghost]

Banquo's Ghost, there are some big business leaders in the US who turn a blind eye to illegal imigration and want the feds to continue doing so, because they can get dirt cheap labor.

Agreed, CR, but here we are talking legal immigration. Everyone within the EU is entitled to work in any other state (broadly speaking, there are some caveats) in the same way a worker from Iowa can go to work in California.

Bulgaria and Romania will soon become new states of the EU - that means their skilled workers will be able to work legally in the UK, and they are both needed and wanted.

[Ironside]

Some eight out of ten earn less than £27,000, with a large number - including many eastern Europeans - on the minimum wage of less than £10,000 a year.

Britons are in the same position, with eight of ten of those born here not earning £27,000 and higher earners paying the majority of the tax bill.

So according to the article the immigrants is exactly correlating to the British population, economic wise? :inquisitive:


Wouldn't that make immigrants quite good for the economy totally? To paraphrase an expression some capitalists likes to make. It's better with a small piece of a bigger pie, than a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

There's other reasons to have moderate immigration, but this isn't one the sencible or reasonable ones.

Besides, long term immigration of only the working elite would have quite interesting effects further on, much more than general immigration.


The other side is, what if all the foreign born employees had the qualifications in the top 20%? Would you then moan about all the top jobs being filled by foreigners while the locals sweep streets, clean sewers, cook and be teachers ~;) then?


I.e., for every $1 of tax, $x are lost because the people cannot spend the money the government taxes, which would have increased the economy.

And the goverment keeps all that money in the matress ofcourse? :dizzy2: ¨
Or the use the money to pay teachers, bureucrats, etc, etc. This is where things gets really complicated to figure out.

[Al Khalifah]

Agreed, CR, but here we are talking legal immigration. Everyone within the EU is entitled to work in any other state (broadly speaking, there are some caveats) in the same way a worker from Iowa can go to work in California.
WRONG!
This is one of the biggest misconceptions about the European Union and one of my biggest gripes with it.
Members of the original 15 member nations have the right to work in any other EU15 member state without any impedance. Members of the expanded European nations (Eastern, poorer, former Soviet etc...) do not share this right because it was blocked by most western European nations. The only nations that do not restrict this free flow of labour are: the UK, Ireland and Sweden. So no, Slovenians cannot just go and work across the border in Italy. It doesn't work that way. And no, Polish plumbers cannot go and work without impedance in France.
And also, certain Eastern European nations are not yet signed up to the free-movement treaty (Schengen?) So you still have to display a passport to move in and out of the Czech Republic for example.

So once again, its not Britain being isolationist or anti-European causing the mass-influx of would-be labourers to Britain - its the rest of EU15's fault !

[Banquo's Ghost]

WRONG!
This is one of the biggest misconceptions about the European Union and one of my biggest gripes with it.

Well, I did say there were some caveats! :grin:

[ShadesWolf]

Utterly ridiculous Daily Mail nonsense.

Shadeswolf, you would do well to experiment with other habits than your beloved Mail quoting Migrationwatch (the barely numerate wing of the BNP). Try, for a change, most business leaders.



Strangly enough I do read other newspapers, mainly the FT and the Times. And the Telegraph on Saturday.

And while you want to talk about the BNP, I find it a little strange that people class the BNP as right wing. I accept that they are nationalist, but since when has that ment right wing. Areas that support the BNP could never be called True Blue.

This is what they stand for, make your own mind up, to me anyway this is not right wing. Nationalist yes, racist - depends on your definition, right wing - NO WAY




IMMIGRATION - time to say ENOUGH!

On current demographic trends, we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question. We will abolish the 'positive discrimination' schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the flood of 'asylum seekers', all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.

EUROPE - back to British independence!

We are opposed to the Single European Currency, and support the overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the Pound and our traditional weights and measures. At the same time, we are for the best possible relationship with our European neighbours and believe that the nations of Europe should be free to trade and cooperate whenever it is mutually beneficial, though without being forced into a political and economic straitjacket - political unification. Accordingly, we stand for British withdrawal from the European Union. In place of the EU, we intend to aim towards greater national self-sufficiency, and to work to restore Britain's family and trading ties with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and to trade with the rest of the world as it suits us. Following our withdrawal from the EU, the BNP will use the £43 million per day net contribution Britain at present makes to the European Union to fund many far more useful projects at home.

LAW AND ORDER - crack down on crime!

The BNP will crack down on crime and restore public safety and confidence. We will free the police and courts from the politically correct straitjacket that is stopping them from doing their job properly. The liberal fixation with the 'rights' of criminals must be replaced by concern for the rights of victims, and the right of innocent people not to become victims. We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals, and the restoration of capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute, as by DNA evidence or being caught red-handed.

ECONOMY - British workers first!

Globalisation, with its export of jobs to the Third World, is bringing ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities that depend on them. Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers. When this is done, unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish, at last getting our people back to work and ending the waste and injustice of having more than 4 million people in a hidden army of the unemployed concealed by Labour's statistical fiddles. We further believe that British industry, commerce, land and other economic and natural assets belong in the final analysis to the British nation and people. To that end we will restore our economy and land to British ownership. We also call for preference in the job market to be given to native Britons. We will take active steps to break up the socially, economically and politically damaging monopolies now being established by the supermarket giants. Finally we will seek to give British workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes.

EDUCATION - discipline, standards, achievement!

We are against the 'trendy' teaching methods that have made Britain one of the most poorly educated nations in Europe. We will end the practice of politically correct indoctrination in all its guises and we will restore discipline in the classroom, give authority back to teachers and put far greater emphasis on training young people in the industrial and technological skills necessary in the modern world. We will also seek to instill in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain.

AGRICULTURE - quality before quantity!

We see a strong, healthy agriculture sector as vital to the country. Britain's farming industry will be encouraged to produce a much greater part of the nation's need in food products. Priority will be switched from quantity to quality, as we move from competing in a global economy to maximum self-sufficiency for Britain. We will ensure a major shift to healthier and more sustainable organic farming. We are pledged to ensure the restoration of Britain's once great fishing industry with the reimposition of the former exclusion zones around our coast.

HEALTH - first-class healthcare for all!

We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service for all British citizens. We will revitalise the Health Service by boosting staff and bed numbers, slashing unnecessary bureaucracy and by addressing the root cause of low recruitment and retention - low pay. We will see to it that no money is given in foreign aid while our own hospitals are short of beds and the staff to run them. More emphasis must be placed on healthy living with greater understanding of sickness prevention through physical exercise, a healthier environment and improved diets.

TRANSPORT - time to invest!

Increased investment is needed in Britain's public transport system to bring it up to the highest standards in the world. The fiasco of rail privatisation with different companies running services and track leading to higher fares and lower safety also needs to be resolved. Congestion of our towns and cities must be eased by the provision of greater incentives to use rail and bus transport instead of private cars. The first step is to end the crime and squalor that puts so many people off public transport. Motorists must not be made the scapegoats for government failure. Fuel tax should be cut, motorway speed limits raised, and hidden speed cameras should be banned. Far more must be done to encourage the development and use of cleaner fuels.

ENVIRONMENT - a cleaner, greener future!

Our ideal for Britain is that of a clean, beautiful country, free of pollution in all its forms. We will enforce standards to curb those practices, whether by business or the individual, which cause environmental damage. "The polluter pays to clean up the mess" must become a fact of life, not an electioneering slogan. In towns we would work to replace the brutalist modernism of 1960s-style-architecture with a blend of traditional local styles and materials and ensure that developments take place on a more human scale.

FOREIGN AID - time to spend our money on our own people!

We reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. We will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, whereby those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The billions of pounds saved every year by this policy will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain.

PENSIONERS - pensioners before asylum seekers!

The conditions in which many of Britain's old people are forced to live are a national disgrace. We are pledged to ensure that all our old folk are able to live in comfortable homes, and will restore the earnings link with pensions. Elderly people who have paid a lifetime of taxes and reared families should not have to sell their homes to pay for care.

NORTHERN IRELAND - an end to sectarianism!

Britain has shamefully allowed the terrorists in N.I. to come close to winning when the IRA could have been destroyed years ago. Government weakness has led to hundreds of deaths and given those same terrorists a share in government. We would end all attempts to force the people of Northern Ireland to accept foreign interference in their affairs and deal with terrorism - from whatever side - once and for all. No one with links to a terrorist organisation that refuses to lay down its arms should be allowed to enter government. We would abolish state-supported segregation in education. In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles.

DEFENCE - no more cuts!

Successive cuts in defence spending have left Britain's armed forces perilously weak. We will boost Britain's armed forces to ensure that they are able to deal with any emergency, and defend our homeland and our independence. We will bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO, since recent political developments make both commitments obsolete. We will close all foreign military bases on British soil, and refuse to risk British lives in meddling 'peace-keeping' missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake - a position of armed neutrality. We will also restore national service for our young with the option of civil or military service.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS - Britain's interests first!

Britain's foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interest and not by our like or dislike of other nations' internal politics. We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. We will maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the 'international community', or any other country.

DEMOCRACY - letting the people decide!

The British people invented modern Parliamentary democracy. Yet in recent years the British people have been denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by a Politically Correct 'élite' which thinks it knows best. On immigration, on Capital Punishment, on the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other areas, democracy has been absent as Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems conspire in election after election to offer the British people no real choice on such vital issues. The BNP exists to give the British people, that choice, and thus to restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. We favour more democracy, not less, not just at national but at regional and local level. Power should be devolved to the lowest level possible so that local communities can make decisions which affect them. We will remove legal curbs on freedom of speech imposed by successive Governments over the last 40 years. We will implement a Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental freedoms to the British people. We will ensure that ordinary British people have real democratic power over their own lives and that Government, local and national, is truly accountable to the people who elect it.

[econ21]

The study sounds like rather good news for the pro-immigration lobby - that migrants to the UK seem to be earning about as much as natives is rather surprising to me at least.

I suppose most people - migrants and natives - are net fiscal drains on the exchequer (not the economy) - that seems almost a necessity given a progessive tax system and a welfare state. But it does not follow that most people are undesirable and should be kicked out, anymore than it implies only the rich (or those genetically predisposed to be rich) should be allowed to breed.

Even in purely fiscal terms, the study seems rather crude - it assumes that everyone benefits equally from the government. I suspect the kids of the NHS consultants, financiers etc benefit more from university education, possibly health care and arguably some other services. A lot may also depend on whether the migrants are temporary or permanent (having kids and growing old here).

In economic terms, there's likely to be a tension between the native consumer gain and the native worker loss. Take Polish plumbers for example. People using plumbers will gain. Native plumbers may lose. Overall, simple economics (e.g. partial equilibrium supply and demand) implies a presumption that the positive outweighs the negative (cheaper labour is good for the natives).

But the primary economic effect of migration is that migrants can earn much more by moving than by staying. This adds up to a big global gain. One simplistic estimate of it was that completely free international migration could double global GDP. The economic effects on native hosts and on the "left-behinds" in the migrants' old countries are second order by comparison.

[ShadesWolf]

So according to the article the immigrants is exactly correlating to the British population, economic wise? :inquisitive:


Wouldn't that make immigrants quite good for the economy totally?


But the point is that because they are on low wages, they will be getting some kind of STATE handout.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They certaibly come accross as right wing on issues such as defence, teaching, crime and foriegn policy. Regardless its not what the BNP says that matters, most of that is fine, its what they really stand for that makes them disgusting degenerate barbarians.

What the figures at the top show is that we are taking in broadly the same economic cross-section as we have already. That would be fine if it weren't for the level of unemployment we have, and the level of poverty.

The fact that only 20% of the population net contribute to the treasury is the sign of too much wealth in too few hands and of rampant public spending.

[ShadesWolf]

and the level of poverty.



Yes I would agree with most of what you said, but define poverty !!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There are a significant number of people unable to provide themselves or their families with adaquate shelter or nutrition. Those kids, for instance, who get free school meals, they live in poverty.

[Ironside]

But the point is that because they are on low wages, they will be getting some kind of STATE handout.

But the point is that according to the article they're on exactly the same level as the rest of the British population, aka better than most people would think.

And GB is such a horrendous state to live in, were the goverment cannot afford anything... ~:doh:

Or to make it simple: If the state goes plus now, they'll go more plus (totally, not percentage wise) with more immigrants, if the immigrants costs/gives incomes as much as the average British person.

As people have a tendency to stay within thier class, only importing upper class would make the under class very foregin compared to the rest of the population.

Oh, and nationalism is linked to conservatism, the traditional right wing in Europe. That's the problem with a one-dimentional scale.

[ShadesWolf]

But the point is that according to the article they're on exactly the same level as the rest of the British population, aka better than most people would think.

And GB is such a horrendous state to live in, were the goverment cannot afford anything... ~:doh:

Or to make it simple: If the state goes plus now, they'll go more plus (totally, not percentage wise) with more immigrants, if the immigrants costs/gives incomes as much as the average British person.

As people have a tendency to stay within thier class, only importing upper class would make the under class very foregin compared to the rest of the population.

Oh, and nationalism is linked to conservatism, the traditional right wing in Europe. That's the problem with a one-dimentional scale.

Disagree.....
If we had zero unemployment then yes we need immigration at what ever level to do the jobs....

But this is a double wammy, so we are paying twice for the jobs :no:

Or am I looking at this from an accountants point of view ? I like things to balance and this just doesnt balance....

[Tribesman]

Or am I looking at this from an accountants point of view ? I like things to balance and this just doesnt balance....
Surely if you were looking from an accountants point of view then you would want reliable figures , the source you have put forward has been shown to be of very dubious reliability ever since they formed .:oops:

[Louis VI the Fat]

WRONG!
This is one of the biggest misconceptions about the European Union and one of my biggest gripes with it.
Members of the original 15 member nations have the right to work in any other EU15 member state without any impedance. Members of the expanded European nations (Eastern, poorer, former Soviet etc...) do not share this right because it was blocked by most western European nations. The only nations that do not restrict this free flow of labour are: the UK, Ireland and Sweden. So no, Slovenians cannot just go and work across the border in Italy. It doesn't work that way. And no, Polish plumbers cannot go and work without impedance in France.
And also, certain Eastern European nations are not yet signed up to the free-movement treaty (Schengen?) So you still have to display a passport to move in and out of the Czech Republic for example.

So once again, its not Britain being isolationist or anti-European causing the mass-influx of would-be labourers to Britain - its the rest of EU15's fault !Wouldn't the conclusion be that it was entirely up to Britain to decide whom to allow entry?
I don't see how you can first give a fiery explanation of why it indeed was up to the individual member states to decide their immigration policy and next blame the EU15 for Britiains policy.


As for the topic itself, I much prefer the UK's keen economic sense over the narrow-minded short-sightedness of France's fear for the Polish plumber. Give me half a million highly educated East Europeans anyday...

[Brenus]

If you sent back all the foreigners working in the UK, who will pay the benefits of your pregnant teenagers? I case of you didn’t notice, the Polish, Czechs, Slovaks and others EU members are registered and pay their taxes. All these young men and women are NOT on social benefit but pay the schools of YOUR children and YOUR inefficient NHS…:laugh4:

The BNP probably still do not understand than Europe is closer than Canada, New Zealand and Australia…
I will not comment all the absurdities contain in the text but the BNP seems to forget that to withdraw from the EU will cut the benefit (re installation of taxes on borders, UK completely under the good will of the EU concerning it trade - ex: what if the EU decide that British cars are too dangerous in EU roads? Within EU UK can veto that, out, well, sorry guys- … etc…). One more, to reinstall death penalty to terrorists blowing themselves in a bus, subway or planes won’t be a very efficient deterrent…:idea2:

“I much prefer the UK's keen economic sense”: Last survey shows the English want to leave England as soon they can. I work in England, I don’t know for France, I don’t live there for now more than 15 years, but in England we are taxed heavily for every think and it became pure extortion. Two years ago, a bus ticket was 0.90 Pound, now 1.5 Pound. Price of houses just rocket sky, rent same thing. Food is very expensive, as much that is now better to go to Calais for shopping. In one trip, your make benefit. My young British colleagues won’t be able to buy their first house, salaries are just misery… I am NOT on the lowest income and my salary covers the rent and the local Council taxes… That is the reality… My wife works, still one daughter to take care, we are just surviving…:wall:
The average UK couple in debts about 3000 Pounds. People survive on loan and credit cards… The New Labour, following Thatcher, sold all England to the riches, and now we pay inefficient but privatise services…:2thumbsup:

[Al Khalifah]

I don't see how you can first give a fiery explanation of why it indeed was up to the individual member states to decide their immigration policy and next blame the EU15 for Britiains policy.
I just dislike the way Britain is portrayed as being anti-European and Eurosceptical and yet at the same time we are willing to make this grand commitment to European integration even at our own expense. I don't think there would be such a vast immigration problem to Britain if the other member nations had agreed to this policy - since the Eastern European economic migrants would be spread throughout Western Europe. There's no reason why if they could that migrant workers wouldn't work elsewhere, but because they can't, they're forced to come to Britain to seek a better life. I don't blame them, they're not breaking the law. However, many Slovenians, especially on the border, would love to be able to work in Italy and many Italian employers would love to employ them but cannot. Why doesn't the rest of Europe get into the spirit of things? Otherwise leave our rebate alone and let us keep the pound.

Britain is a small country. It's population just hit 60,000,000. It's a question of size. We just can't handle such rapid expansion - our infrastructure is stretched as it is. I'm not anti-immigration - I'm just thinking about the national interest. I'm not afraid of immigrants taking my job because I know I'm the best damn qualified person to do it and if there's someone better willing to try and do it for less money he can bring it on.

[L'Impresario]

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about the European Union and one of my biggest gripes with it.
Members of the original 15 member nations have the right to work in any other EU15 member state without any impedance. Members of the expanded European nations (Eastern, poorer, former Soviet etc...) do not share this right because it was blocked by most western European nations. The only nations that do not restrict this free flow of labour are: the UK, Ireland and Sweden. So no, Slovenians cannot just go and work across the border in Italy. It doesn't work that way. And no, Polish plumbers cannot go and work without impedance in France.
And also, certain Eastern European nations are not yet signed up to the free-movement treaty (Schengen?) So you still have to display a passport to move in and out of the Czech Republic for example.

So once again, its not Britain being isolationist or anti-European causing the mass-influx of would-be labourers to Britain - its the rest of EU15's fault !

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/free_movement/index_en.htm

Italy: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/emplweb/news/news_en.cfm?id=169

[Louis VI the Fat]

I just dislike the way Britain is portrayed as being anti-European and Eurosceptical and yet at the same time we are willing to make this grand commitment to European integration even at our own expense.I get it now. But you see, those are two different things. The UK simply is Eurosceptical. It is also one of the most respected EU members, known for its thrustworthininess and for sticking to what it agreed upon.

Maybe the first does lead some to overlook the second. That would be a rightful reason for British indignation then. I do not now how widespread this misconception is, the notion that Britains scepticism means it is not a good member state. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that to a large extend this is only a British misconception about a rather limited notion on the continent.

As for the rest of your post, quoted below, I think a good deal depends on one's opinion about labour migration from the new member states. You think that the UK is carrying the burden of the latest expansion. I on the other hand am dissapointed that we are missing out on a lot of skilled, hard-working or highly educated East-European workers. We got pwnd by Britain and Ireland in this respect - through no coincidence currently the two most dynamic EU economies. And we've got nobody but ourselves to blaim.


I don't think there would be such a vast immigration problem to Britain if the other member nations had agreed to this policy - since the Eastern European economic migrants would be spread throughout Western Europe. There's no reason why if they could that migrant workers wouldn't work elsewhere, but because they can't, they're forced to come to Britain to seek a better life. I don't blame them, they're not breaking the law. However, many Slovenians, especially on the border, would love to be able to work in Italy and many Italian employers would love to employ them but cannot. Why doesn't the rest of Europe get into the spirit of things? Otherwise leave our rebate alone and let us keep the pound.

Britain is a small country. It's population just hit 60,000,000. It's a question of size. We just can't handle such rapid expansion - our infrastructure is stretched as it is. I'm not anti-immigration - I'm just thinking about the national interest. I'm not afraid of immigrants taking my job because I know I'm the best damn qualified person to do it and if there's someone better willing to try and do it for less money he can bring it on.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I much prefer the UK's keen economic sense”: Last survey shows the English want to leave England as soon they can. I work in England, I don’t know for France, I don’t live there for now more than 15 years, but in England we are taxed heavily for every think and it became pure extortion. Two years ago, a bus ticket was 0.90 Pound, now 1.5 Pound. Price of houses just rocket sky, rent same thing. Food is very expensive, as much that is now better to go to Calais for shopping. In one trip, your make benefit. My young British colleagues won’t be able to buy their first house, salaries are just misery… I am NOT on the lowest income and my salary covers the rent and the local Council taxes… That is the reality… My wife works, still one daughter to take care, we are just surviving…:wall:
The average UK couple in debts about 3000 Pounds. People survive on loan and credit cards… The New Labour, following Thatcher, sold all England to the riches, and now we pay inefficient but privatise services… :2thumbsup:
I was refering to Britains keen economic sense in this respect, concerning migrant workers. But yes, I do think we could do with a bit more Anglosaxon neo-liberalism. I see the shortcomings of their system, and am not willing to swap. But when they come over to Calais for a cheap shopping trip and save enough on a weeks grocery shopping to pay for the trip you know something is horribly wrong. We used to go to Spain for that, remember? Now people are coming over to us.

[Papewaio]

There is a massive advantage to workers when they can travel around... it will make the companies have to compete fare more for skilled workers.

[Al Khalifah]

As for the rest of your post, quoted below, I think a good deal depends on one's opinion about labour migration from the new member states. You think that the UK is carrying the burden of the latest expansion. I on the other hand am dissapointed that we are missing out on a lot of skilled, hard-working or highly educated East-European workers. We got pwnd by Britain and Ireland in this respect - through no coincidence currently the two most dynamic EU economies. And we've got nobody but ourselves to blaim.
I agree it works both ways - I guess I just never thought about things from your perspective - your view does make a lot of sense. I think the problem is we just weren't expecting/wanting quite so many immigrants. The expression too much of a good thing comes to mind...

[Fragony]

'Four out of five migrants 'take more from economy than they put back'

And the pope is a catholic, anyone suprised or something?

[English assassin]

Not at that post anyway.

Anyone know what its like in Poland? In all seriousness, you can't get a plumber or a barman in London now without them being Polish (which I don't care about so long as my bathroom is fixed and my beer poured) but the loss of about 0.5 million young taxpayers from the economy must be causing real problems over there. According to my favourite source (the CIA world factbook) the working age population of Poland is about 26-27 million, so that's about 2% gone more or less overnight, give or take.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The fact that there are so many Polish plumbers is worrying, because it means there aren't any English plumbers. This is the real problem we have over here.

All those people who were plumbers, carpenters, brickies and whatever else are now just growing up to be hoody-wearing chavs. Actually I knew a chav, about the only one in my area, he became a plumber.

The real problem Britain has here is that only 20% of the population are making a net contribution to the treasury. That means the Civil Service and Public Service sectors are too expensive and that wages are too low.

That's why everything is so expensive, Labour is revving the economy by creating more and more Public Sector jobs. We're going to end up like Scandanavia, without any of the benefits.

[ShadesWolf]

So what do you want to know about Poland ?

That a worker is prepared to travel for two days (hitch hiking) to get to an interview for a job. That the quality of the worker far outways the same people in the UK.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I knew that.

There's the problem you see, the British lower class (oh, how un PC) have become a load of lazy scroungers.

[cegorach]

Not at that post anyway.

Anyone know what its like in Poland? In all seriousness, you can't get a plumber or a barman in London now without them being Polish (which I don't care about so long as my bathroom is fixed and my beer poured) but the loss of about 0.5 million young taxpayers from the economy must be causing real problems over there. According to my favourite source (the CIA world factbook) the working age population of Poland is about 26-27 million, so that's about 2% gone more or less overnight, give or take.


Not really, unemployement in this age group is pretty high. True that certain companies have problems in finding people - no wonder if you can earn 5 times more abroad you take the opportunity - but it has little impact on economy. In fact it will give much profit to both sides in the end.

The topic's title is pretty stupid. It is obviously not true. Every worker in the UK payes taxes and has little desire to be tortured by the crappy NHS.
I was for one year in the NI so I know how it is.

Overall it is pretty simple people travel to the UK to work in places waiting for them ('booked' by their friends) or find one there. They rent a house and spend 2-3 years on avarage. In the end come back with the money they were able to earn and spare.
There is no desire to 'exploit' the NHS or anything else. The jobs taken by those people have little interest among 'the natives' and the cash they spend on food, clothes, travelling or to rent a living space.

I was working in a press distribution company so I had time to read enough British papers - the Mail or other tabloids are far from being reliable.

If you want to talk about wasting huge amounts of money - you should check other places.:laugh4: