Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course. Because most Brexiteers are racist and bigots who want the UK purged of anyone 'different' and they want to take away the current rights of British people to live anywhere in the EU. I hope history judges them harshly if no deal is the outcome.
According to the ONS since the referendum immigration has slowly risen with a big drop off in numbers from the EU.
Looks like the main impact of Brexit is that countries of origin will switch to being almost entirely outside the EU instead of 50/50. Supply and demand and whotnot.
According to the ONS since the referendum immigration has slowly risen with a big drop off in numbers from the EU.
Looks like the main impact of Brexit is that countries of origin will switch to being almost entirely outside the EU instead of 50/50. Supply and demand and whotnot.
I´ve said before immigration will continue unabated regardless of Brexit.
By being in the EU the immigrants in the main look and act very much like any other British person and assimilate very quickly and generally add value to the country.
Close off those immigrants and you get walking pillboxes and people with a totally different ideology and Like Dave pointed out earlier some want you dead, very scary prospect and I know who I´d prefer for my neighbour.
The breakdown data from last week’s vote on Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement:
ENGLAND: 266 MPs for, 256 MPs against (51%-49%)
SCOTLAND: 13 for, 45 against (22%-78%)
WALES: 6 for, 33 against (15%-85%)
NORTHERN IRELAND: 1 for, 10 against (9%-91%)
It's obvious, the solution is independence for England. Let the others stay in Europe.
European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 have contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances between 2001 and 2011. Moreover, they have endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education.
Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European 'accession' countries (the 'A10') contributed 12% more than they received.
These are the central findings of new analysis by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini of the fiscal consequences of European immigration to the UK, published today by the Royal Economic Society in The Economic Journal.
Immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.
BREXIT has cost the British economy £600 million a week since the referendum, and the shock of a no-deal divorce could hammer the country even harder.
A new report published by investment banking giant Goldman Sachs suggests that since the June 2016 vote, nearly 2.5% has been shaved off GDP.
It argues that had UK voters opted to remain, the economy would have been in a much stronger position, instead of underperforming and lagging behind other advanced economies.
Goldman’s number crunchers concluded that investment has been one of the biggest casualties of the Brexit debacle, confirming official data which has shown it in decline.
The report echoes a Bank of England analysis that suggested around £40 billion per year, or £800 million per week, of lost income for the country as a whole since the result of the leave vote.
European immigrants who arrived in the UK since 2000 have contributed more than £20bn to UK public finances between 2001 and 2011. Moreover, they have endowed the country with productive human capital that would have cost the UK £6.8bn in spending on education.
Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European 'accession' countries (the 'A10') contributed 12% more than they received.
These are the central findings of new analysis by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini of the fiscal consequences of European immigration to the UK, published today by the Royal Economic Society in The Economic Journal.
Immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU.
Professor Christian Dustmann
It all depends where you get your information. It can vary. But one thing is for sure, even young immigrants will get old, and then depend on the taxpayer. Even more so in later years, with declining health, causing ever more strain on the NHS.
So what do we do then? Import even more immigrants to pay for it all? A constantly growing population, in some sort of giant pyramid scheme? When is enough, enough? When do politicians stop keep kicking the can down the road?
People will have to live in this country long after I'm gone. What are we leaving for later generations to deal with? Ever more diversity, and enrichment? Enriched until we have a civil war? Will that be enough?
BREXIT has cost the British economy £600 million a week since the referendum, and the shock of a no-deal divorce could hammer the country even harder.
A new report published by investment banking giant Goldman Sachs suggests that since the June 2016 vote, nearly 2.5% has been shaved off GDP.
It argues that had UK voters opted to remain, the economy would have been in a much stronger position, instead of underperforming and lagging behind other advanced economies.
Goldman’s number crunchers concluded that investment has been one of the biggest casualties of the Brexit debacle, confirming official data which has shown it in decline.
The report echoes a Bank of England analysis that suggested around £40 billion per year, or £800 million per week, of lost income for the country as a whole since the result of the leave vote.
BREXIT has cost the British economy £600 million a week since the referendum, and the shock of a no-deal divorce could hammer the country even harder.
A new report published by investment banking giant Goldman Sachs suggests that since the June 2016 vote, nearly 2.5% has been shaved off GDP.
It argues that had UK voters opted to remain, the economy would have been in a much stronger position, instead of underperforming and lagging behind other advanced economies.
Goldman’s number crunchers concluded that investment has been one of the biggest casualties of the Brexit debacle, confirming official data which has shown it in decline.
The report echoes a Bank of England analysis that suggested around £40 billion per year, or £800 million per week, of lost income for the country as a whole since the result of the leave vote.
So you believe we should remain in the EU, with freedom of movement continuing forever? What will be the cost to the country with water shortage, and civil strife from over population? You think all these immigrants will mix nicely with the native population, and we'll all sit round campfires singing Kumbaya, My Lord?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
