Are you saying that the figures showing that immigrants from Eastern Europe are net contributors to the economy are wrong ?
It would be more accurate to say that any increases in NHS spending have not kept up with the growing population, which is nothing like the picture that you are trying to paint.
The % increases in spending dont take into account any increase in population and again, if you believe our unemployment figures, at the lowest for decades, then someones sums dont add up, unless all of the "new" employment is on minimum wage or zero hours contracts

What the hell has that got to do with the demand immigrants place on the NHS? Does their highly debatable net contribution increase the number of beds to account for their numbers? Oh they might pay in, but unless the NHS is operationally able to immediately absorb the impact their numbers bring, it's largely irrelevant.



As for non-EU immigrants, that's another story on a different scale entirely - a negative impact of [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/european-immigrants-contribute-5bn-to-uk-economy-but-non-eu-migrants-cost-118bn-9840170.html£118 billion 1995-2011[/url as even the Indy acknowledges.

Fact is, every government has closed facilities and reduced the number of beds due to the NHS being an massively unwieldy beast. Labour reduced beds by around 52k during their last tenure. Since the 2010 GE beds have dropped by around 14k.


And how is spending supposed to keep up if you have no idea how how much your population might increase by in any given year?

NHS spending has risen and risen year on year to try and keep pace with a growing and aging population, and the increasing costs of healthcare and wages. That, and that closure of too many facilities alongside institutionalised legacy inefficiencies have taken their toll.

Fact is, we have an increasingly aging population together with population growth boosted by immigration. The UK population grew by 513,000 in 2016, of which 335,000 was net migration - so don't try to tell me immigration isn't a factor in the NHS overload (and housing, and other public services). It absolutely is, and 20 years of the idiot liberal left vilifying anyone who dare say otherwise was a big factor in Brexit, and the rise of UKIP and 'populist' tendencies.

I am friends with 2 x midwives, a hospital theatre manager and a couple of nurses - and in private all of them bemoan the impact and strain immigration places on their services (the midwives in particular!). But if they opened their mouths in public they'd be sacked. The liberals in charge don't stand for that sort of thing.




What's that you say? The bottom end of the jobs market is trashed? Low cost labour is being taken advantage of? Wonder what might have influenced that...

It absolutely is - in a tiny, almost statistically insignificant way - as explained [url=https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-immigration-and-pressure-nhs/here.[/url

The ageing population is a much bigger factor - and the NHS gets a double blow in that regard, because Social Care services have been slashed to the bone, meaning that elderly people don't get the care they need in their own homes to prevent hospital admissions - and when they do get admitted, the services to support them in the community aren't there, so they can't be discharged. The announcement that Jeremy Hunt will retain Health and also pick up Social Care does not give me any comfort that things will improve on that front any time soon.

You're dead right about non EU migration too - we absolutely did have the ability to control that, and successive governments, including one Mrs T May as longstanding Home Secretary, utterly failed to do so. That said, we also had an ability to control EU migration, despite the scare tactics used by the Leave campaign, but didn't do that either. So I agree that the rise of right wing, xenophobic rhetoric that people have got behind, was enabled by a series of failures on both sides of the political spectrum - and this is where we've ended up.

And it raises some serious moral dilemmas. Is the population living longer purely through healthier lifestyles, or are the unhealthy living longer via expensive medicine, treatment and care? Do we keep relying on immigration to solve the problem of caring for the ageing population, knowing too that they will expand their families, and in turn, get old and require care themselves?

It would also be worth looking at the infant mortality rate. The infant mortality rate has reduced by over 10 times since Victorian times. I seem to remember reading somewhere that around half of children born in Victorian times didn't make it to their 1st birthday. The problems encountered then haven't gone away entirely, it's just that we now have a better ability to treat and care for, or in the recent Charlie Gard case, prolong the suffering of the ones that didn't used to make it.

By 2035 the UK population is estimated to be around 73.2 million with just over two-thirds of the projected increase from 2010 to 2035 either directly or indirectly due to migration. If the population explosion carries on at this rate, it won't just be healthcare that will be in crisis. Housing, infrastructure, travel, employment will too take centre stage. Sooner or later there are going to be some very uncomfortable questions, and I don't trust anyone currently in power to provide an answer.

Thanks for the lecture, always much appreciated.

The lack of sufficient funding for a growing and more importantly ageing population should not just be blamed on immigration, which the poster that I replied to actually inferred, the problems are far deeper and you know this.
THe % increase in NHS spending barely cover inflation and this is without the other many and varied reasons why the service needs more funds.

The elephant in the room is the need to address just what the NHS should be used for and more importantly how the hell to cope with the increasing demands put on the service by an ever more "needy" ageing population.

But, we'll ignore that and just blame immigration.
It's quite laughable that non EU immigration, which we "control" was higher in the last 12 months than EU immigration.
Perhaps when we have "full control" this figure may even grow ??

To state the strain on the health service is down to immigration just shows your xenophobia. A far bigger strain is due to the lifestyles of the native population. Crap food, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, lack of exercise, over work, stress.

My recent experiences of hospitals is I am struggling to remember one overseas patient, unless you are classing second & third generation immigrants. Numerous overseas nurses, doctors & specialists committed to caring though.

I know a fair number of people who work in health & social services. None of them bemoan immigration.

The liberals aren't in charge. Where've you been?

:











Daily Mail 0 Common sense 1

Reading not your strong point? I said it's a factor. Which it is. Or do you think 335,000 extra people each year make absolutely zero demands on the NHS?



BTW did you ask everyone in those waiting rooms their origins? No, didn't think so. In fact, you're making it up, aren't you. Just as you're lying about your ailing memory of overseas patients.

I could tell you my experience of EVERY NHS waiting room I've been in containing a significant proportion of foreign-speakers. Hospitals, GPs and drop-in centres. Every single one. I don't know where you live (cloud cuckoo land?), but I could take you to Fairfield Hospital, Rochdale Infirmary, North Manchester Hospital, Trafford Hospital, Royal Oldham, Royal Bolton, and you would witness this at any given time. You can deny this all you like but just pause for a moment and think about the demographics of those areas. First, second or third generation I don't know (or care).

Any NHS workers you know probably don't feel comfortable telling you how they feel as you'll probably accuse them of lying and go into some blinkered leftist rant.

Xenophobic?

I've lived in Europe for several years, I'm half non-British European and I'm surrounded by Europeans at work, mainly Germans a but a real broth of nationalities. Another typical loony trait - throw insults at anyone who simply understands the numbers coming in are unsustainable. Because that's all it is - a numbers game. Your insults don't wash with me sonny jim. Go back to your British-only waiting room.

I'm not talking about contribution in financial terms (which is debatable) - but rather the impact on resources. If 335,000 immigrants arrive in any given year, their contributions aren't in the coffers for some time and more importantly given we don't know how many might arrive, there is no increase in facilities to account for the demands they place on the system. Same goes for schools, housing, etc. All are feeling the squeeze.


Agree with all of the above. Vast changes are needed sooner rather than later, changes which will have to cost us all much more.


Yes, we could have put temporary transitional controls on EU migration in 2004 - but a Mr Anthony Charles Lynton Blair chose not to, for political and ideological reasons. The thing is, you don't get a second opportunity whenever you feel like it so saying we could still have limited immigration is incorrect - something backed up by the EU itself, who have repeatedly stated freedom of movement is entirely non-negotiable. One of the reasons I voted leave.

Another one who can't read. Show me where I 'just' blamed immigration.

Ditto, you didn't but, the poster that I replied to, which provoked you to jump right onto your high horse did.
Perhaps you should start again

And the circus rolls on... You couldn't make it up, could you?! www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53106.html

And the circus rolls on... You couldn't make it up, could you?! www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53106.html

Quote ="King Street Cat"And the circus rolls on... You couldn't make it up, could you?! www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53106.html'" with ALL the clowns in politics nowadays, we can sell Wesminter for flats and build a 3 ring circus on wasteland somwhere, the moon looks a good option!

Quote ="King Street Cat"And the circus rolls on... You couldn't make it up, could you?! www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53106.html'" with ALL the clowns in politics nowadays, we can sell Wesminter for flats and build a 3 ring circus on wasteland somwhere, the moon looks a good option!

Quote ="wrencat1873"Ditto, you didn't but, the poster that I replied to, which provoked you to jump right onto your high horse did. Perhaps you should start again '" Erm...you replied to ME. viewtopic.php?f=11&p=18682178#p18682178

Quote ="wrencat1873"Ditto, you didn't but, the poster that I replied to, which provoked you to jump right onto your high horse did. Perhaps you should start again '" Erm...you replied to ME. viewtopic.php?f=11&p=18682178#p18682178

Quote ="King Street Cat"And the circus rolls on... You couldn't make it up, could you?! www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53106.html'" Since de facto PM Farage has announced it, I expect it to become Government policy very soon.

Quote ="King Street Cat"And the circus rolls on... You couldn't make it up, could you?! www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53106.html'" Since de facto PM Farage has announced it, I expect it to become Government policy very soon.

Quote ="King Street Cat"And the circus rolls on... You couldn't make it up, could you?! www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53106.html'" There's a certain irony in one-trick Farage stating; “What is for certain is that the Cleggs, the Blairs, the Adonises will never, ever-ever give up. They will go on whinging and whining and moaning all the way through this process".

Quote ="King Street Cat"And the circus rolls on... You couldn't make it up, could you?! www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 53106.html'" There's a certain irony in one-trick Farage stating; “What is for certain is that the Cleggs, the Blairs, the Adonises will never, ever-ever give up. They will go on whinging and whining and moaning all the way through this process".

Quote ="Cronus"Erm...you replied to ME. retro.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f ... #p18682178'" You clearly dont remember this wrencat1873 wrote: Are you saying that the figures showing that immigrants from Eastern Europe are net contributors to the economy are wrong ? What the hell has that got to do with the demand immigrants place on the NHS? Does their highly debatable net contribution increase the number of beds to account for their numbers? Oh they might pay in, but unless the NHS is operationally able to immediately absorb the impact their numbers bring, it's largely irrelevant. As for non-EU immigrants, that's another story on a different scale entirely - a negative impact of £118 billion 1995-2011 as even the Indy acknowledges. Fact is, every government has closed facilities and reduced the number of beds due to the NHS being an massively unwieldy beast. Labour reduced beds by around 52k during their last tenure. Since the 2010 GE beds have dropped by around 14k. It would be more accurate to say that any increases in NHS spending have not kept up with the growing population, which is nothing like the picture that you are trying to paint. The % increases in spending dont take into account any increase in population... And how is spending supposed to keep up if you have no idea how how much your population might increase by in any given year? NHS spending has risen and risen year on year to try and keep pace with a growing and aging population, and the increasing costs of healthcare and wages. That, and that closure of too many facilities alongside institutionalised legacy inefficiencies have taken their toll. Fact is, we have an increasingly aging population together with population growth boosted by immigration. The UK population grew by 513,000 in 2016, of which 335,000 was net migration - so don't try to tell me immigration isn't a factor in the NHS overload (and housing, and other public services). It absolutely is, and 20 years of the idiot liberal left vilifying anyone who dare say otherwise was a big factor in Brexit, and the rise of UKIP and 'populist' tendencies. I am friends with 2 x midwives, a hospital theatre manager and a couple of nurses - and in private all of them bemoan the impact and strain immigration places on their services (the midwives in particular!). But if they opened their mouths in public they'd be sacked. The liberals in charge don't stand for that sort of thing. ...and again, if you believe our unemployment figures, at the lowest for decades, then someones sums dont add up, unless all of the "new" employment is on minimum wage or zero hours contracts What's that you say? The bottom end of the jobs market is trashed? Low cost labour is being taken advantage of? Wonder what might have influenced that...

Quote ="Cronus"Erm...you replied to ME. retro.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f ... #p18682178'" You clearly dont remember this wrencat1873 wrote: Are you saying that the figures showing that immigrants from Eastern Europe are net contributors to the economy are wrong ? What the hell has that got to do with the demand immigrants place on the NHS? Does their highly debatable net contribution increase the number of beds to account for their numbers? Oh they might pay in, but unless the NHS is operationally able to immediately absorb the impact their numbers bring, it's largely irrelevant. As for non-EU immigrants, that's another story on a different scale entirely - a negative impact of £118 billion 1995-2011 as even the Indy acknowledges. Fact is, every government has closed facilities and reduced the number of beds due to the NHS being an massively unwieldy beast. Labour reduced beds by around 52k during their last tenure. Since the 2010 GE beds have dropped by around 14k. It would be more accurate to say that any increases in NHS spending have not kept up with the growing population, which is nothing like the picture that you are trying to paint. The % increases in spending dont take into account any increase in population... And how is spending supposed to keep up if you have no idea how how much your population might increase by in any given year? NHS spending has risen and risen year on year to try and keep pace with a growing and aging population, and the increasing costs of healthcare and wages. That, and that closure of too many facilities alongside institutionalised legacy inefficiencies have taken their toll. Fact is, we have an increasingly aging population together with population growth boosted by immigration. The UK population grew by 513,000 in 2016, of which 335,000 was net migration - so don't try to tell me immigration isn't a factor in the NHS overload (and housing, and other public services). It absolutely is, and 20 years of the idiot liberal left vilifying anyone who dare say otherwise was a big factor in Brexit, and the rise of UKIP and 'populist' tendencies. I am friends with 2 x midwives, a hospital theatre manager and a couple of nurses - and in private all of them bemoan the impact and strain immigration places on their services (the midwives in particular!). But if they opened their mouths in public they'd be sacked. The liberals in charge don't stand for that sort of thing. ...and again, if you believe our unemployment figures, at the lowest for decades, then someones sums dont add up, unless all of the "new" employment is on minimum wage or zero hours contracts What's that you say? The bottom end of the jobs market is trashed? Low cost labour is being taken advantage of? Wonder what might have influenced that...

Go home wrencat, you're drunk.

Cant wait till duty free comes back, one of the few positives of brexit

Freedom of movement does not give anyone the right to remain here if they are a burden on the State. You have not been able to pitch up here and remain be a burden on the state since 2006 when The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 came into force in UK law. That basically says you either have a job or can prove you won't be a burden by having things like your own comprehensive health insurance. EU migrants also can't claim unemployment benefit for three months and if they don't have a job after six months they can be deported. Other EU countries limit full access to benefits until after you have paid into the system for a number of years (five in Germany). In Germany there was a case where someone had lived there for 3 years supporting themselves but then tried to claim child support on the birth of their first child but was denied it by the ECJ because they had never worked so never paid into the system. So unless you simply don't like foreigners your concerns over Freedom of Movement were ill founded and no basis for a vote to leave.

Aware of all that. Though in reality the system can be manipulated in various ways to extend into years. I can't find the article that demonstrated how but it's to do with time in the country, proof of job seeking, etc. And how many actually leave once the 6 months is up? No-one seems to know, which suggests it's not an efficient system.

Either way, none of the above gives us control over limiting the numbers allowed to enter the country and commence their residence in the first place. I've always said it's a numbers game (although other issues are also of concern). Whether the migrant is working or not is largely irrelevant, the reality is far too many people have arrived far too quickly. The fiscal impact is one thing, the social impact and demand on infrastructure and services is another.

In fact the main point I was actually making - and have made many times on here - was the EU's refusal to even consider negotiating. One of their biggest members and largest contributors expressed major concerns with the 'Pillar' of Freedom of Movement yet the EU thumbed their noses at us (one said we were acting like children) and repeatedly stated all the Pillars are non-negotiable.

Do I want to be a member of a blinkered movement that acts so arrogantly when a key member state and net contributor of billions a year raises concerns? No, do I feck.

So yes, perfectly happy with my reasons for voting leave and nothing to do with your idiotic final sentence Dave.

In the campaign we were given the spectre of being overrun by Turks and Eastern Europeans and that [uwe were powerless to do anything about it.[/u Your post read to me that you thought this also. You may have known better but this lie was a trump card played by Farage in the closing stages of the campaign.

That we may not have actively sought to deport those who overstay is a failure of the UK government, no one else. Just along the same lines as letting tourists or students overstay or for that matter any of the usual mess they make of things such as allowing fraudulent benefit claims or failing to collect taxes.

I think it would be a pretty stupid idea to stop collecting taxes or paying benefits because we are bad at policing the system and I think it is equally stupid to vote to leave the EU due to concerns over our inept policing of FoM. It's a drastic over-reaction. Before that moron Cameron raised the prospect of a vote the EU was so far down the list of concerns for most voters except the UKIP fanatics it was off the bottom of the page. And the kippers only got on a roll when Cameron gave 'em the ammunition by his equally stupid attempt at another renegotiation.

As to an intransigent EU, we were part of the EU that drew up the Single Market Rules and the four freedoms in the first place and a leading player in that. People talk of the EU as it it is a political entity in its own right. It's not. It he the body that implements the will of its members and then only on issues that affect the EU itself such as the workings of the single market. That vast majority of our laws, rules and regulations are set down by our own parliament.

We are actually going to lose sovereignty by leaving because whether we end up with a Norway type agreement or a Canada type agree we will be complying with EU rules with no say in those rules.

[url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/19/europe-wake-up-drastic-financial-consequences-hard-brexit-netherlands-uk#commentsA Dutch view on Brexit[/url

Indeed.
Assuming that we wish to continue trading with the EU, post Brexit, all of the regulations that Farage and his cronies sneered at, will still need to be in place.
Of course, when we conquer the brave new world, allowing us to export like never before and import untold amounts of cheap produce, the EU will be a distant memory. Unfortunately,this is more fantasy thinking but, at least it give the Brexiteers something to hold on to.
It was interesting to hear Howard Davies, chairman of The Royal Bank of Scotland, concede that Britain will most likely be losing a slice of it's much coveted financial sector. with the French and Germans positively salivating at the thought.
It does look like we will be paying an extremely high price for "taking back control".

Absolutely. I mean, [url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/mar/24/how-immigration-came-to-haunt-labour-inside-storyonly 13,000 have arrived from Eastern Europe[/url...oh wait.



I doubt Turkey will join the EU any time soon, especially with Erdogan in power. But as a secular state it was creeping towards membership - membership talks have been ongoing for years. You truly think we wouldn't see massive migration from Turkey if they did join?

Deary me, you lot would make the same mistakes over and over.




Yes it is. Partly because no-one in a position to do anything about understood there might be millions about to rock up, and never put systems in place, and any attempt to put controls in place was shouted down by the left and the EU. Any discussion of this is often shouted down today. Why people are so desperate for immigrants I don't know. Yes I do - because they blindly adhere to a certain ideology.


FoM is far from the only reason to leave. But while we're on the subject, FoM is a feckin moronic idea up there with signing Ryan Bailey, and should NEVER have been agreed. Oh it's a nice fluffy concept but it's causing massive issues for the countries of origin and destination - and the blinkered EU will never admit it. Paint some big red arrows over a map of Europe pointing from the East and several Med nations towards the UK, France, Scandinavia and the Germanic areas and you get a basic idea of all FoM has achieved. Immense pressure in some areas and a massive loss of working-age population from others. Stupid beyond belief.

Tell me, why are you so concerned with the rights of others to come here and plainly don't give two tosses about the rights of the British people, who are forced to deal with massive and rapid social change, huge pressure on housing and public services, low wages being driven down and other issues such as the import of Eastern European organised crime? Are you a typical UK-hating loony leftist? A Corbynite, no less?


Correct. In fact it's so good at implementing the will of its members it point blank rejected the will of one of its biggest members to consider renegotiating those pillars.

If it's so wonderfully democratic why won't it even consider change?


We shall see.

Either way, the EU has a history of failure and I see no reason to expect anything different in the future. From the Euro to food mountains to fishing quotas to the Balkans conflicts to today - the refugee/migration crisis will continue to grow this summer, most of Southern Europe will continue to decline, youth unemployment will remain a huge problem and the Germanics at the helm want to drag the whole lot into 'ever closer union'. And guess what, you can't remove any of those steering the ship. They will force their ideology home at any cost.

As I've said all along, the UK is in for a rollercoaster for a few years but when the dust settles things will carry on (with a few changes, granted) and in the long term we'll all be better off while the EU continues to battle its demons.