John Holland

[14BradfordRoad]

Re UKIP:
General Election 2015, Can immigration figures rescue floundering Ukippers? Net long-term migration to the UK was estimated to be 298,000 in the year ending September 2014, a statistically significant increase from 210,000 in the previous 12 months. So 90,000 or so above the governments own target (from 'Statistics quarterly report').
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/gener ... z3SqksOF2Z

Re NHS:
The NHS/Hospitals/Social care facilities, along with other infastructure factors (Dare I mention Housing yet again?), would need to be boosted continually year by year. This clearly isn't happening quickly enough to keep pace. As HB has already mentioned, net immigration into UK provides a financial gain (Taxes, etc) but surely this raises at least a couple of questions;

Would this extra money (raised from net migration) be spent on boosting much needed aspects of the UK infastructure (including NHS, more/bigger hospitals)?

Secondly. Would the extra amount of money (sourced from UK immigration) ever be enough?

Above are factors and questions aimed at national level, but importantly at a local MP level; Could the proposed UKIP candidate bring any local benefits to this constituancy? (based on doubt that UKIP could win the Gen Election anyhow)..

[Nigel]

Stuart
well done for sticking to the point - when you took issue with Sparticus I thought for a moment that you were going to chastise him for turning on the hate-speech tap - as ever, nothing I have said is racist , even by HB's definition.
Apart from your own arguments , lots of emotional wooly nonsense about Syria and the generic " be nice " type policy.

Back to EU - where I assure you I still have not exceeded any herring quota, red or otherwise .

Firstly the EU influences policy on immigration - nobody has mentioned ECHR - but the effect is massive - not numerically but in terms of the public's sense of self determination . On a smaller level there is evidence that criminals and terrorists have evaded deportation , contrary to how the British public would have dealt with them . I am not conflating migrants or asylum seekers with crime or terrorism but equally not saying the opposite .

Secondly , the " first safe place " principle is clearly not applied in any sense - unless claimants originated from Netherlands or Ireland etc . Without EU membership this country could return anyone claiming asylum to mainland Europe which in turn would probably sharpen minds over there . Italy now finds itself in this position - quite rightly angry that they bear the overwhelming cost of detention of illegal migrants (leaving aside asylum claims) .

Thirdly , the open borders in Europe inevitably make it easy for criminals to move between countries to facilitate people smuggling , itself a violent , criminal act .

Lastly, large numbers of illegal immigrants will ultimately be naturalised after arriving through southern Europe (admittedly some direct into UK but most of those via Calais) . From what we know about migrant destinations , a significant amount of these will head for the UK -inevitable and understandable .

To be clear , I am completely disregarding the impact of EU migration to the UK - if I am honest , I would say there is potential for benefit to the UK but only if selective - and as we all know selective means racist .

I completely disagree with your Islamism = Town Benefit Office , but completely respect your right to ignore pressing issues and marginalise those that want to speak about them to the sardonically named part of the forum .

A very good evening
Nigel

[_HB]

Secondly , the " first safe place " principle is clearly not applied in any sense - unless claimants originated from Netherlands or Ireland etc . Without EU membership this country could return anyone claiming asylum to mainland Europe which in turn would probably sharpen minds over there . Italy now finds itself in this position - quite rightly angry that they bear the overwhelming cost of detention of illegal migrants (leaving aside asylum claims) .

I'll leave Stuart to tackle the wider arguments but your post should make a clearer distinction between EU migration, non-EU migration and asylum seeking. The three are very distinctly different and the causes and solutions are very different. But the main reason for the quotation above is that you have made a very common mistake in trotting out the "first safe place" myth with has been repeatedly shown to be false http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... l-position

Further, the "first safe place" myth clearly does not apply to non-EU migration as a whole. I hope this just reflects some of your own 'wooly' thinking rather than a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.

[stuart]

Nigel,

Red herrings: another one - the ECHR. The topic I'm trying to stick to is whether leaving the EU would be beneficial to the NHS. I've tried to show it is not. You know the ECHR is a different and independent institution so whether it would effect our NHS is irrelevant to the UKIP point. Leaving the EU and leaving the the ECHR are two very different things.

As an aside do you remember when Alex Salmon wanted to model Scotland's future on the 'Celtic tigers' of Iceland and Ireland? He went a bit quiet on that. I wonder why? Well your namesake appears fixated on seeing the UK out of the EU to follow the model set by Norway so they can control immigration and hence, presumably, protect their health system. Now what is the "fastest growing city in Europe because of increased immigration". Wikipedia it for the answer.

I say that because your argument that membership of the EU facilitates immigration from outside the EU doesn't seem to work out in practice. That, as David Cameron has discovered, even a heartfelt and desperate promise to reduce both EU and non-EU immigration is not compatible with trying to build a stronger economy to support and grow our health service. Reducing the EU numbers would only put more pressure into accepting non-EU people. I get the feeling that you regard these (particularly the Muslim variety) even less acceptable.

When it comes to terrorism. Which European country has has had the highest number of civilian deaths due to terrorism in the last 10 years? Correct Norway again. And it wasn't the Muslims that dunnit.

I think I'll sign off here with one final thought. The UKIP candidate's dream of a British Health Service, not an International Health Service. I guess that means cutting out the non-British people it serves. Can we really do that without cutting out the non-British people who do the serving? About 25% of doctors I think and a rather higher number of nurses. A British Health Service? Dream on and be careful for what you wish for.

Stuart

PS 'Open Borders'? When did you last pass through a channel port?

[_HB]

Leaving the EU and leaving the the ECHR are two very different things.

Actually membership of each is bound with membership of the other through the Council of Europe. If we unilaterally left the ECHR, we would very quickly be in breach of our Council of Europe obligations which would lead to sanctions and eventual expulsion. If we are expelled from the CoEu we lose our EU membership. Maybe that has been the plan all along?

Not that any of that would impact the NHS of course

[stuart]

Norway, which is not a member of the EU, is a member of ECHR. They are bound by many EU directives and agreements if they wish to maintain a sane trading relationship with the EU as would the UK. I wonder if that implies directly or indirectly with ECHR membership? One thing is certain, we wouldn't get a vote on it.

I also wonder if leaving the ECHR, even if possible is the panacea some claim. ECHR law largely derives from British practice so will bringing it back home make that much difference? Well yes if the politicians can overrule the judiciary in protecting our civil rights. While I'm not totally unsympathetic with Shakespeare's ""let's kill all the lawyers" I think only after cutting off all politicians at the knee.

Such drastic surgery would put an intolerable burden on our health service.

Stuart

[_HB]

Norway, which is not a member of the EU, is a member of ECHR.

But they are a founding member of the Council of Europe. Same applies to them, but without the risk of losing EU membership. I'm sure they would be implications for their membership of EFTA though.

I also wonder if leaving the ECHR, even if possible is the panacea some claim. ECHR law largely derives from British practice so will bringing it back home make that much difference?

Not only that, but the vast majority of human rights cases under the EU Convention on Human Rights are heard in and under the jurisdiction of British Courts (since 1998). Even many of those that the Daily Mail and Telegraph types on here like to bang on about.

Oh dear, this is all unraveling very quickly

[Nigel]

HB
Thank you for the glee you bring to any discussion about our national difficulties .
It's made me realise how wrong I am .
I will henceforth campaign for even more EU control over the UK and although I know no further investment in the NHS will ever be made - I will fight for more and more people to have inalienable rights to use it , even to the detriment of my own family - anything less would a bit embarrassing
A very good afternoon
Nigel

[_HB]

Thank you for the glee you bring to any discussion about our national difficulties .

Any discussion about what you perceive to be our national difficulties.

The discussion I was having with Stuart was regarding the technicalities of EU and ECHR membership so you're way off the mark. Now that's embarrassing.