On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:08:34 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

However in this case, is it not the EU that facilitated the mobility
of a population

Because, of course, people from Ireland, Scotland, the North of
England, the South West haven't been heading to the South East (or
wherever else's been perceived as lucrative) to seek their fortunes for
FAR FAR longer than the UK's been an EU member, have they?

They have, however the scale of the migration is what makes the current
situation different.

No, it really isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_m..._Great_Britain
10% of British people have at least one Irish grand parent.

To put that into proportion, even the Daily Wail estimates a million
"Eastern Europeans" are in the UK - 10yrs after the start of the
accession wave. That's an average of only about half the net migrants to
the UK each year, about one quarter of the annual population growth - or
about one eighth of the number of births in the country each year.

that found our lavish public services and benefits system particularly
attractive?

So you're suggesting that the government should make hefty cutbacks to
public services and benefits?

We can't actually fund those which we currently provide, so it seems we
have the option of generating more revenue, or reducing spending since
an ever increasing debt burden is not sustainable. The revenue raising
can only happen as a result of private sector wealth generation - and
there are practical limits (in a developed economy) as to how fast they
can scale. If they can't keep up with the spend rate on public sector
costs, then you are left with only one viable option.

I wonder how you viewed yesterday's news that recent EU migrants have
contributed more to the exchequer, per capita and relative to benefits
claimed, than "native" Britons?