Simple question to you, our population due to us having no control of our borders to eu citizens is rapidly approaching the population of France. Obviously France is a far larger country than ours. Please give me a figure that you think will indicate that we are full up. Or do you think we can carry on with this madness.
I see more dirt poor Eastern European are in the process of joining. And why not, can’t blame them ,access to free health care and housing etc etc.

This is a circular argument - I've posted several times the evidence that EU migrants are net contributors to the UK economy; I don't fancy going around it all over again.

I would be interested to hear your view of the revelations about Leave EU and it's illegal activity and links to Cambridge Analytica, and the latest story about Arron Banks, Nigel Farage and the Russian ambassador; or the Private Eye expose on Jacob Rees-Mogg and his recently created Dublin based investment vehicle, specifically designed to insulate his wealthy investors (and him) from the effects of Brexit?

These people are shamelessly self-interested - you've been duped.

All fake news, next country to join eu is Albania. Negotiations well underway, average wage over in that bastion of democracy is approximately £1.60 per hour. You still haven’t answered my question, you obviously believe in free movement within the eu so what population figure do you think enough is enough.
Reference Arron banks, after wiping the floor with the House of Commons select comitee he is sorting out that Belgian popinjay.
The architects of this mass controlled immigration is Tony Blair and Peter mandleson. Both at the outset had virtually no money whatsoever. Mandelson had to borrow money in dubious circumstances to find a deposit for his fancy London Town house. Let’s not forget kinnock in all this, after gifting the tories an election labour should have won he jumped on the eu gravy train. Conveniently taking along his wife .

Thank you - end of discussion.

I’m still waiting for my answer.

I believe in FoM yes; but with a government that can actually be d to implement the powers it already has to exercise sensible limits - as I've said many times before. The details are nicely summarised [url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-bird/immigration-blame-the-uk-_b_13120104.htmlhere.[/url

Your turn - and if you say 'fake news' - I'm blocking you.

Huffington Post, must be based on fact, honest!

There are plenty of other references - I preferred that one because it was simple; but there is no argument, regardless of your political leanings, that those powers exist, have always existed, and successive UK governments have failed to use them.

And yet, more than half of our immigration was already "controlled".
FWIW, there should always have been some control and the leaders of the EU have steadfastly stuck to their "free movement" mantra without any consideration of the consequences.
We should have worked from the inside to make change though and not sacrificed our position.

The housing and free health care is just a red herring though.

Do you think that people would really move 1000's of miles just for these benefits, it's just utter nonsense, again, stirred up by the right wing press, giving their loyal readers what they want on the front page of their chip paper.

The Eastern Europeans that I personally know seem to be willing to work damned hard to try and make a life for themselves and the main issue is probably more to do with them sending money home, rather than spending their money in the UK, something which is also prevalent among some of our Asian immigrants but, the work shy scrounger type comments are just wrong.
Mind you there are plenty of British people who are more than happy to use immigration as an excuse not to work rather than crack on with their lives.

Doesn't matter how often you post it, it's not quite as simple as that. It's actually highly debatable and depends on the methodology and assumptions of the analysis. And beyond the economic effect of immigration you conveniently ignore pressures and disruption on communities, services, housing, etc. A price not worth paying.

Taken in the round, most studies conclude that while more recent and younger EU migrants probably make a negligible fiscal contribution, earlier and older EU migrants tend to be a burden. Non-EU are a burden overall. They also conclude that while the individual migrant sees some benefit to moving to the UK, the existing population sees little to none, and from a social perspective probably experiences a disruptive impact.

And where does it stop? How many a year should we allow in? Even the looniest lefty must accept net migration cannot continue at 250-300,000 a year (up to 600,000 migrants minus 300,000 emigrants). You think the housing crisis is bad now? Take a moment to consider the much higher birth rate of those 600,000 annual migrants, together with our rapidly aging population. Then look 10...20...40...100 years ahead. If you can't see where this massive and exponential population growth is going, you don't understand the wider picture.


This wasn't directed at me, but here's my answer - I really couldn't care less.

Data harvesting and profiling has existed for decades, nothing new. If CA were so effective they'd have steered Ted Cruz to victory when they worked for him, surely? In fact, the only sin CA committed was a violation of Facebook policy when they bought the legally harvested data from Aleksandr Kogan, who developed the harvesting app. Despite their bold sales pitch (widely ridiculed in their field), in reality the degree of influence that several years-old data could have had on Facebook users during the Trump campaign is minimal.

In the same vein, I reckon every marketing company in the world is desperate for the secret of Russian success in somehow swaying millions of voters - Saatchi & Saatchi eat your heart out. Oh they were active, no doubt, but the degree of their influence is also hugely questionable.

And it's not as though all players aren't active online during campaigns. Voters would have most likely seen content related to their profile history either way. Take away the Russians and there are plenty of other campaign groups fighting for Facebook space and pushing the their agenda. Given that Facebook feeds show what the user is already interested in, it's unlikely they swung many voters.

Nah, Remainers clutching at straws to explain why they didn't win is embarrassing.


Really? I'd say you've been duped hook, line & sinker by the great EU project. As far as I'm concerned Remainers have been brainwashed by a Germanic elite with a dangerous agenda.

Answer me a question I've posted a few times without receiving a reply: why are you so desperately concerned with the right of migrants to move to UK? Why is that more important to you than the concerns of the majority of the UK population?

Sorry you were talking about swapping goods currently sourced from the EU for ones sourced outside the EU.

Self-inflicted currency meltdown apart, goods sourced from China (say) will be the same price but that wasn't your point.

To replace EU-sourced ones - even if directly comparable goods could be made of the same quality for a reasonable cost (doubtful in lots of sectors) - you add on transport costs and duty/import tariffs. Oh, and also add on TIME for it to be slow boated by Maersk or MSC to the UK unless you want to airfreight it at huge cost - JIT is so fundamentally critical in a modern economy it's staggering it doesn't get mentioned more to deflect the rubbish spouted by people like the Sun article the other day highlighting how Felixtowe could simply be used instead of Dover.

I'm pretty sure - but happy to be shown otherwise - that the power to place a 7 year transitional period (generally consisting of 2+3+2 year review periods) on working rights is a one-off when a new country joins the EU, not a power that can be implemented at any time. We can therefore thank Blair for being a massive cockwomble. Not that it really matters; a temporary delay is just that and doesn't prevent the inevitable.

As for the remainder of the controls, as with most things it's not that simply and in reality they would do little to limit the numbers even if enforced in full.

First off, pretty much any EU citizen can turn up and live here for 3 months unchallenged, after which they can fudge their way through. if just one member of a family is working - even if they go from job to job - they can stay. Any period not in work but not of their own making is regarded as employment. Any period out of work for health reasons is counted as employment. They can even leave the UK and go home for extended periods without affecting their recorded length of stay here.

Even if not 'economically active', the state MUST assess whether this is a temporary situation and take into account the length of stay, personal circumstances and any welfare awarded. If there are kids involved it's even more complex. Only if they are then judged to be an "unreasonable burden" (a vague test at best) can any action be taken. Of course if they get a job while all this is going on the assessment comes to an end.

Once they have stayed 5 years they are here permanently, without condition.

Deportations are slow, expensive and very difficult to enforce and the fact is until 2010 we had a government completely plugged into the EU experiment and blind to the growing concerns of their own people. Indeed, it's only in the last few years we can even question the EU, FoM and immigration without being shouted down by rabid loonies as racist or xenophobic. Even the Tories were unwilling to go there for a few years for the same reason. On the basis of that track record, it's little surprise there have been few real controls in the UK.

Even if we point the finger of blame solely at successive UK governments, the fact remains millions have flocked here, millions more will come if they can and action needs to be taken. We can't ignore it. In light of Brexit and the rise (and fall) of UKIP, the Tories now seem to appreciate the depth and strength of public feeling against continued mass immigration, hence the need for far stricter immigration laws and to leave the Single Market.


Not true. They were introduced in 2004 when the A-8 joined the EU, precisely because a vast wave of economic migration was predicted.