Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Sheer Heart Attack

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sheer Heart Attack

  1. Awww, the person who can't tell the difference between a genuine xenophobe and someone who wants controlled immigration so it benefits both countries is trying to be all grown up and provide a grown up response. Good on you, dugsbody. Proud of you my boy. What a little champ! 🤪
  2. I have explained plenty of times that I do not want to close the borders nor do I want 100% open borders. Comprehension is not a strong point of yours, clearly. And this tragic example of a reply is typical of your standard back-foot, worn-out argument tactics - you're out of your depth so you play the man and not the ball. So much so that you've sneaked in an implication that I am against foreigners. If you can't hold an argument together and if you can't rebut points which go against your own point of view, this is the wrong place to be, mate. Just saying 😍
  3. HPCers, particularly Remoaner HPCers, are unable to apologise for or acknowledge any flaw in their logic no matter when presented with evidence.
  4. You are correct - I haven't supplied a single one. There are advantages and disadvantages to immigration and, like the rest of the world, I struggle to find a balance but I am certain personally FoM isn't it. My inability to come up with a solution however does not prevent me from seeing problems with the existing and former systems. From the OECD, "human development is especially at risk when skilled emigration affects the education and health sectors." If you want a grown-up debate, I respectfully suggest that you and your like stop ignoring/denying the reference evidence I have pointed to on multiple occasions that emigration from poorer countries does not cause problems in those countries. I haven't even addressed the effect on wages in receiving countries so eloquently put by Stuart Rose, low-wage fanatic and prominent Remoaner before the referendum. Nor have I addressed the effect on house prices or rental prices from a rapidly-growing population - bit surprising that this is skimmed over on a forum about the unfairness of very high house prices. You may think my care and concern for developing and poor countries is a "stretch on reality to Tenet level" but it's clear that I do actually care about it and you don't give a shit. "I'm alright, Jack" so screw the rest of you. PS. And calling me "dull" and then appealing for a "grown-up debate" is a little pot and kettle, mate.
  5. Exactly. One of the so-called benefits of Brexit was a great reset - an idea that we would stop relying on cheap imported labour to train up our own citizens. It was a lie and this is a massive missed opportunity.
  6. You have not even addressed my argument let alone debunked it - talking with you is like talking with yelims but without the hystrionics. In the interests of balance (a concept apparently alien to you)... "Emigration can have a positive impact on development. Remittances sent by migrants to developing countries – U.S. $436 billion in 2014 – represent more than three times the global flows of official development assistance. This stable source of financing can help reduce poverty, spur consumption, foster entrepreneurship, and increase households’ investments in education and health. Diasporas can also send collective remittances to finance local development projects or help rebuild countries after natural disasters, which is what happened after the April 2015 earthquake in Nepal. Migrants send not only money, but also social remittances. When they travel home or communicate with their families in their countries of origin, migrants often transfer the values and behaviours observed in host countries, precipitating a decline in fertility rates, increased women empowerment or a growing demand for accountable institutions. Finally, the emigration of tertiary-educated individuals can have a brain-gain effect by encouraging those left behind to study longer, hence increasing the stock of human capital. Yet, migration can also generate negative effects for origin countries. Even though developing countries can benefit in the long run from the emigration of skilled people, the brain drain can prevent poor countries from investing in human capital. Human development is especially at risk when skilled emigration affects the education and health sectors. Although remittances help families, migration outflows can create labour shortages, especially in rural areas. This lost-labour effect can sometimes, like in Sahelian countries, exacerbate food insecurity. Emigration also has social costs. Family disintegration caused by the departure of one or both parents can in some cases leave children with psychological problems, risking school dropout and even increased violence. In the long term, emigration can even turn into a poverty trap: because emigration helps relieve the pressure on the labour market and remittances constitute a social safety net, governments may not see the need to reform labour markets and social welfare systems." Source: OECD (not the foam-at-the-mouth Brexiteers you might imagine, hey?). Looks like you've been well and truly debunked by the OECD, mate. And, in answer to your question on whether I have a term for Brexiteers who deny that there are zero disadvantages to Brexit, I would call them "foam-at-the-mouth Brexiteers" as above. However, this thread is an echo chamber for whiny Remoaners so I am lone voice of sanity among a crowd of hysterical Remoaners.
  7. You're a piece of work, mate. Interesting how you fail to recognise let alone challenge the evidence I have presented. Remoaner is as Remoaner does.
  8. Yes, this is quite surprising but, by using this measure, Nicola Sturgeon is being quite canny because there are some doubts as to the usefulness of GDP per capita overall.. Interesting critique of the value of GDP per capita as a measure here. You might also find Politico's breakdown of why the Irish GDP per capita is so misleading.
  9. Suspect what you will, Staffsknot. I have presented this disgruntled Remoaner echo chamber of a thread with evidence of the damage FoM does to poorer countries and the mass emigration of a class of professional (in this case, RNs) from a poor country much further away. Your point blank refusal to acknowledge the damage done by Filipino nurse migration demonstrates the moral vaccum in which you operate with your dismissal of a valid argument as "strawman". Very cynical but very see-through. Ability to follow a thread is also not a strong point of yours as, earlier in this thread, I stated that I have no problem with migrants sending cash back to their home countries and families. A great many of the number of EU nationals signing on to stay in the UK will be from poorer countries and they're not looking to return anytime soon. That's a hammerblow to the hearts of the development of these nations. Britain is a parasite for the best of the best poorer overseas countries have to offer instead of investing in training our own people up. Remoaner Reaction - shrug shoulders, deny reality, attack the messenger. Yawn - when's World War 3 happening by the way?
  10. Anecdotal I know but a broker told me the other week that 35-40% deposits were now required on office premises by lenders.
  11. I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the Filipinos dying without medical treatment in the rural areas of that country. Good call.
  12. My point throughout is that immigration, howsoever controlled, has positive and negative consequences. In some countries like Croatia and Poland, it has caused a substantial reduction in the size of the working population. In the Phillipines (although much of it is self-inflicted), people may be dying because of it. I have not argued my point of view as being based in altruism - I am merely stating that those who believe in FoM/limitless immigration do so from a point of view of not giving a shit about the negative effects it has here in the UK or for the countries immigrants come to us from. Your comments above confirm that I am correct because you don't deem either worthy of serious investigation or concern. FWIW, I don't think the Government have any intention of reducing immigration numbers in the coming years. It's not a prerequisite for others to have time for my beliefs or values. On a similar topic, I once read that the way to cure endemic poverty and lack of opportunity in Sunderland was to move its entire population to London. I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that but it does have a parallel with the 6 billion you mention coming across to Europe. Do you have a maximum number of people you'd want to be given permission to live and work in the UK?
  13. 1) I don't oppose bright people coming to the UK. In my previous posts, I mentioned that we should try to attract the best of the best from around the world to benefit the country. In the case of movement of population in the UK, they are already citizens of the country and they are already counted into the figures. The population of the UK has not massively increased in the last 15 years from people moving to one part of the UK to another part of the UK. I respectfully suggest that you read my previous posts because you'll understand better my point of view because it seems like you're disagreeing with me just for the sake of it. 2) Again, it is their money and they should do with it what they please. I have just ordered some tech from aliexpress.com. This is the problem with Remoaners who are triggered by any talk of the disadvantages of immigration. The red mist of righteous disgust descends and they think that, if you disagree with them, you want a fortress Britain, huge import tariffs, exchange controls, zero immigration, and so on. That's just not the case. Anyway, bringing up the Phillipines is an interesting point. According to Wikipedia... "The Philippines is the largest exporter of nurses in the world supplying 25% of all overseas nurses. An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study reported that one of every six foreign-born nurses in the OECD countries is from the Philippines. Of all employed Filipino RNs, roughly 85% are working overseas." Nursing work in the Phillipines is not great with "low wages, poor benefit packages (and) fewer jobs available". The government there seem to be making a rod for their own back and it's obviously not our fault that compensation is so low and opportunities so scarse. But "(a)ccording to many Filipinos working in hospitals, the most educated and skilled nurses are the first to go abroad...it is clear that there is a short supply of the most skilled nurses who go abroad. "As a result, operating rooms are often staffed by novice nurses, and nurses with more experience work extremely long hours. As skilled nurses decline in the urban areas, nurses from rural areas migrate to hospitals in the cities for better pay. As a result, rural communities experience a drain of health resources. "Stories and studies alike demonstrate that a treatable emergency in the provinces may be fatal because there are no medical professionals to help treat them. In fact, "the number of Filipinos dying without medical attention has been steadily increasing for the last decade." Anyone pretending that attracting, for example, skilled and trained medical staff from poorer countries overseas does not have a negative effect on the country they're leaving is in denial or deluded whether or not the original country "brought it on themselves".
  14. As eluded to in an earlier response, I do not have all the answers to this. There are however three possible positions to take: No immigration Controlled immigration Unlimited immigration Each one has consequences for the immigrant, for the host population, and for the economy and wellbeing of the country an immigrant is leaving and the country the immigrant is coming to. You are correct that FoM will not save brain drain from poorer countries because there are other rich countries like the UK still in the EU. And, forgive me for being selfish, but I would prefer: controlled immigration limited to areas of skill shortage and where the country as a whole can gain an advantage from a particular person being here and a 20-30 year policy from this and successive governments of targeting training and investment in those areas of skill which we currently must plug using labour from abroad so we can reduce our dependence on immigration. I know this will never happen but, if it did, it would improve opportunities and salaries across the UK for every citizen. It would also mean that 300,000 extra people every single year were not competing for homes to buy or rent.
  15. Apologies, slawek. I skim-read your post originally and misread it. I have since changed it so directly answer both questions so please check again.
  16. You raise a very interesting point about people being able to move around. I don't pretend to have all the answers to this and I would welcome your ideas on what you think international and/or UK immigration rules and numbers should be. I would argue that FoM within the EU is different to freedom of movement in the UK. First, economic disparities exist within the UK but look at the disparities in the UK. Gross monthly wages here are €3,396 a month compared to €766 in Bulgaria. Bulgaria does not have a chance to compete on wages with any area of the UK, Germany, France, etc. FoM here benefits the Bulgarian wishing to come to the UK and the company wishing to employ him/her. FoM does not benefit Bulgaria which loses that person's skills and tax income nor does it benefit, in the case of "low skill" jobs, UK workers who face increased competition and lower wages (propped up only by the NMW/NLW). Croatia has lost 15% of its workforce because of FoM (average wage €1,297 (38% of UK salaries)). If you are Croatian, this is no laughing matter. This is not a joke. Yes, wages have gone up in Poland by 10% in the last year to €1,289 - behind Croatia. I suspect this may be for many of the same reasons we are seeing wage acceleration in "low skill" jobs in the UK too (minus the Brexit factor). We don't see this in the UK because the disparities are much lower. London is an outlier, of course, being a world city but, in the SE England, the average wage is £33,004 and in the North East £27,856 (84% of SE salary). The financial incentives under FoM to move to a rich country like the UK are much greater than the financial incentives for someone to move from Sunderland to Surrey. I can't see how anyone with any reasonable intelligence can dispute these facts, Brexiteer or Remoaner.
  17. You see - this is the essence of the problem with Remoaners. Whether through FoM or via a points-based system, we are stealing the best and the brightest from often poorer countries. Poorer countries with just as much potential and talent as the UK to progress. Your denial of the consequences of FoM in particular and from poorer EU countries suggests that you actually know this is a problem but you couldn't give a shit about it. Instead of acting as a massive parasite on other countries, why not upskill our own people instead? And, just for the avoidance of doubt, I don't need the benefit of the doubt from you as I am sure you don't need it from me.
  18. So it's only structurally racist if you think it is despite the fact that 500m predominantly white people could come and go from the UK whereas 7bn mainly non-white people had to jump through hoops? Not very diverse or inclusive really, is it? And you don't see a moral problem with having 25,809 NHS staff trained in India but working here nor 22,043 Filipino staff, 8,241 Nigeran staff, 4,313 Pakistani staff, 4,192 Zimbabwean staff, and so on? Do you not think those countries need those staff? Britain, in line with the rest of the EU and the "developed" world, is acting as a parasite on the economic growth and wellbeing of countries which can barely afford it. A kind of reverse colonialism, if you ask me. As for brain drain from poorer countries, it is a reality. Croatia's goverment has called its migration exodus an "“essential” problem for the country of 4.2 million — an outflow mirrored in other member states to the EU’s east, where faster-growing economies struggle to find sufficient workers. "According to the EU’s statistics office, 15% of working-age Croats now live in other member states, the second highest proportion after Romania." (source: EURACTIV). In the EU, "countries such as Romania, Poland, Italy, and Portugal are especially affected by brain drain, while other countries such as Sweden, Ireland, Estonia, and Denmark notice the opposite effect, namely brain gain." (source: AER.EU) Unrestricted immigration negatively impacts unskilled native populations as well as developing nations' chances to advance - it is undeniable. With respect, it's muddled up thinking to deny the real-world negative consequences of something you believe in which is what you appear to be doing.
  19. Honestly mate, you're a moron. All you seem to do is spam this thread with "gammon, fascists, Nazis, Mussolini, swastika" and so on. Other than me (stupidly), no-one responds to your posts because they see them for what they are - unhinged spamming. Your opinions are worthless and you have nothing of value to contribute. I am adding you to my "ignore" list, only the second person is nearly 15 years of visiting this forum. Get back onto Twitter with all the othered triggered nutters.
  20. One argument I'm surprised Brexiteers did not make more to appeal to more liberal-leaning waverers was the inherent and structural racism of Britain's immigration as a member of the EU. Essentially, the predominantely white European had no problem getting into the UK where as the rest of the world, which is not predominantely white, had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get in. Personally, as long as an immigrant knuckles down when they get here and contributes, they're more than welcome especially those who give the country a competitive/cultural advantage. But, as an aside, the coronavirus pandemic has shown us how reliant we are on overseas doctors, nurses, and keyline workers. Thank God they were here. I naively hope and wish that we can become more self-reliant in training British people to fill these roles so that we don't end up nicking talent from much poorer countries for which investment in training is a much greater burden proportionally.
  21. I agree that the Leave side lied but I also believe that the Remain side did. Both (or all) sides lying in politics is unfortunate but not new. The Remain side gaslighted the public for years about the level of EU migration, the lack of democratic controls, the number of laws being made from Brussels, and so on. With Brexit and coronavirus, I believe that we should never let a good crisis go to waste. Unfortunately, we're not let by people capable of turning difficulties into opportunities.
  22. Please let me clarify - "freedom of movement" to me means the freedom to live and work in the EU countries, not the ability to live and work in the four constituent nations of the UK. In the EU sense, a consequence of the "freedom of movement" policy is mass immigration from those EU27 countries so I think the two can be conflated. For me, "left" and "right" or my definition of them is still probably stuck in the 1980s. If you're "left", you want bigger government and you're more socially liberal and tolerant. If you're right, you want smaller government and you may be less socially liberal and tolerant. However, people's views now seem to be a mish-mash of what is, to me, left- and right-wing opinions. Wanting control over immigration seems to have morphed from being a centrist policy 20 years ago to being "extreme right-wing" now which, to me, is ridiculous. The Overton Window has deffo shifted.
  23. Nurse, nurse...he's posting again! "Gammon, Nazis, fascists, gammon, Nazis, fascists, "we were lied to nurse!", crap 1984 comparisons, slippery slope"...same old deranged extreme left tropes from a completely unoriginal mind. I do see parallels with ignorance and stupidity in your posting though.
  24. I would say, coming from the North East (born and brought up in a red wall seat), many centre-left and centrist people who used to or still do support the Labour Party (i.e. "ordinary people") strongly disliked the notion of freedom of movement just as much as people on the centre-right. I am not sure that immigration is quite the left and right issue you allude to anymore. In fact, I think only the extreme left and big business which are in favour of freedom of movement and mass immigration. And all the indications are that Boris Johnson isn't particularly bothered by immigration levels and that we'll see roughly the same numbers coming into the UK every year that we did pre-Brexit. It's just, as a poster said earlier, the racial diversity among immigrants may be much wider than before, not that I personally have a problem with that.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.