Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants
with poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.

There is. They don't get to put their hand out to the state
for anything like the same level of benefits back where
they are coming from than the locals in Britain can do.

Oddly enough, some people prefer to earn their living,
even when 'benefits' if not working at all might be similar.

Sure, but that isn't the case with most of the recent migrants
who mostly come from places which aren't anything like as
generous with benefits as Britain currently is.

On 15/06/16 17:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
I just love the idea of free education and free NHS. Wonder who pays
for it? I'd just like to say thanks to them. Is it some massively rich
benefactor like Donald trump?

That's why the cost of the 'free' education, per child is shown in
brackets. A couple with just 2 kids would need a family income that, if
earned by one person would put them just into higher rate tax. have move
kids, or earn less (and most DO earn less) and that family is being
subsidised by other taxpayers, mostly the top 25% of private-sector
taxpayers, and still a heck of a lot of borrowing (some £75 Billion per
year) to make up the gap between tax receipts and spending.

Do just love this back of a fag packet accounting. No wonder you believe
the outers.


In or out, most of the economic arguments are ******** anyway.

Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein manage quite fine being members of the
EEA without the full on EU nonsense.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Oddly enough, some people prefer to earn their living,
even when 'benefits' if not working at all might be similar.

Sure, but that isn't the case with most of the recent migrants
who mostly come from places which aren't anything like as
generous with benefits as Britain currently is.

Yet another whoosh.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 15/06/16 17:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
I just love the idea of free education and free NHS. Wonder who pays
for it? I'd just like to say thanks to them. Is it some massively rich
benefactor like Donald trump?

That's why the cost of the 'free' education, per child is shown in
brackets. A couple with just 2 kids would need a family income that,
if earned by one person would put them just into higher rate tax.
have move kids, or earn less (and most DO earn less) and that family
is being subsidised by other taxpayers, mostly the top 25% of
private-sector taxpayers, and still a heck of a lot of borrowing
(some £75 Billion per year) to make up the gap between tax receipts
and spending.

Do just love this back of a fag packet accounting. No wonder you
believe the outers.


In or out, most of the economic arguments are ******** anyway.

Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein manage quite fine being members of the
EEA without the full on EU nonsense.

True. But then they have to contribute to the EU money wise, allow free
access to EU citizens, and implement the vast majority of EU directives,
etc. Without the same representation at Brussels. So really not much
different from the UK at present, as regards the thing the BREXITs want
changed.

And given immigration from the EU is very likely the single most important
reason why those who don't much care about the economy want to leave,
there would be an outcry if we signed up to that sort of deal. It is after
all the only reason UKIP got so many votes at the last election -
immigration.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Oddly enough, some people prefer to earn their living,
even when 'benefits' if not working at all might be similar.

Sure, but that isn't the case with most of the recent migrants
who mostly come from places which aren't anything like as
generous with benefits as Britain currently is.

Yet another whoosh.

You wouldn’t know what a whoosh was if it bit you on your lard alcoholic
arse.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Tim wrote:

On 15/06/16 17:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In ,
wrote:

I just love the idea of free education and free NHS. Wonder who pays
for it? I'd just like to say thanks to them. Is it some massively rich
benefactor like Donald trump?


That's why the cost of the 'free' education, per child is shown in
brackets. A couple with just 2 kids would need a family income that,
if earned by one person would put them just into higher rate tax.
have move kids, or earn less (and most DO earn less) and that family
is being subsidised by other taxpayers, mostly the top 25% of
private-sector taxpayers, and still a heck of a lot of borrowing
(some £75 Billion per year) to make up the gap between tax receipts
and spending.

Do just love this back of a fag packet accounting. No wonder you
believe the outers.



In or out, most of the economic arguments are ******** anyway.


Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein manage quite fine being members of the
EEA without the full on EU nonsense.

True. But then they have to contribute to the EU money wise, allow free
access to EU citizens, and implement the vast majority of EU directives,
etc. Without the same representation at Brussels. So really not much
different from the UK at present, as regards the thing the BREXITs want
changed.

And given immigration from the EU is very likely the single most important
reason why those who don't much care about the economy want to leave,
there would be an outcry if we signed up to that sort of deal. It is after
all the only reason UKIP got so many votes at the last election -
immigration.


You haven't read the manifesto have you. No wonder you have
such ignorant views.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Watts wrote

In or out, most of the economic arguments are ******** anyway.

Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein manage quite fine being
members of the EEA without the full on EU nonsense.

True. But then they have to contribute to the EU money wise, allow free
access to EU citizens, and implement the vast majority of EU directives,
etc.

But Britain would be free to decide not to do any of
that, just like all but 3 of these have decided not to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Without the same representation at Brussels. So really not much different
from the UK at present, as regards the thing the BREXITs want changed.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

And given immigration from the EU is very likely the single most important
reason why those who don't much care about the economy want to leave,
there would be an outcry if we signed up to that sort of deal.

And that is why it wouldn't happen.

It is after all the only reason UKIP got so
many votes at the last election - immigration.

You don't know that either.

En el artículo , Andrew Andrew97d-
escribió:

If Andrew Neil says its £10 Billion, then it IS £10 Billion.

*rolls eyes*

And you believe old Brillo Pad? Where does HE get his "facts" from?
This is the guy that used to edit the Sun, remember...

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

En el artículo , Adrian
escribió:

Presuming you mean "Spanish or Portuguese", you do know that means
they're not Brazilians any more, but are Spaniards or Portuguese...?

I think someone's xenophobia and/or lack of geography has made him a bit
confused.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 15/06/2016 22:14, Tim Watts wrote:

In or out, most of the economic arguments are ******** anyway.

Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein manage quite fine being members of the
EEA without the full on EU nonsense.

They do have free trade but they have to allow the EU migrants free
access to get the free trade access, and Switzerland does. This means it
fails the UKIP number one item of stopping migration.

Maybe you have some better examples that don't allow migration and still
have free trade with the EU?

On 16/06/2016 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 15/06/16 17:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
I just love the idea of free education and free NHS. Wonder who pays
for it? I'd just like to say thanks to them. Is it some massively rich
benefactor like Donald trump?

That's why the cost of the 'free' education, per child is shown in
brackets. A couple with just 2 kids would need a family income that,
if earned by one person would put them just into higher rate tax.
have move kids, or earn less (and most DO earn less) and that family
is being subsidised by other taxpayers, mostly the top 25% of
private-sector taxpayers, and still a heck of a lot of borrowing
(some £75 Billion per year) to make up the gap between tax receipts
and spending.

Do just love this back of a fag packet accounting. No wonder you
believe the outers.


In or out, most of the economic arguments are ******** anyway.

Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein manage quite fine being members of the
EEA without the full on EU nonsense.

True. But then they have to contribute to the EU money wise, allow free
access to EU citizens, and implement the vast majority of EU directives,
etc. Without the same representation at Brussels. So really not much
different from the UK at present, as regards the thing the BREXITs want
changed.

And given immigration from the EU is very likely the single most important
reason why those who don't much care about the economy want to leave,
there would be an outcry if we signed up to that sort of deal. It is after
all the only reason UKIP got so many votes at the last election -
immigration.


ITYM migration the UK government control immigration to the UK.
EU migrants have to be workers to qualify.

dennis@home wrote
Tim Watts wrote

In or out, most of the economic arguments are ******** anyway.

Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein manage quite fine being
members of the EEA without the full on EU nonsense.

They do have free trade but they have to allow the EU migrants
free access to get the free trade access, and Switzerland does.

And none of the rest of these does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

This means it fails the UKIP number one item of stopping migration.

Nope.

Maybe you have some better examples that don't
allow migration and still have free trade with the EU?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 16/06/2016 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 15/06/16 17:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
I just love the idea of free education and free NHS. Wonder who pays
for it? I'd just like to say thanks to them. Is it some massively
rich
benefactor like Donald trump?

That's why the cost of the 'free' education, per child is shown in
brackets. A couple with just 2 kids would need a family income that,
if earned by one person would put them just into higher rate tax.
have move kids, or earn less (and most DO earn less) and that family
is being subsidised by other taxpayers, mostly the top 25% of
private-sector taxpayers, and still a heck of a lot of borrowing
(some £75 Billion per year) to make up the gap between tax receipts
and spending.

Do just love this back of a fag packet accounting. No wonder you
believe the outers.


In or out, most of the economic arguments are ******** anyway.

Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein manage quite fine being members of the
EEA without the full on EU nonsense.

True. But then they have to contribute to the EU money wise, allow free
access to EU citizens, and implement the vast majority of EU directives,
etc. Without the same representation at Brussels. So really not much
different from the UK at present, as regards the thing the BREXITs want
changed.

And given immigration from the EU is very likely the single most
important
reason why those who don't much care about the economy want to leave,
there would be an outcry if we signed up to that sort of deal. It is
after
all the only reason UKIP got so many votes at the last election -
immigration.

ITYM migration the UK government control immigration to the UK.

No they do not with EU citizens.

EU migrants have to be workers to qualify.

No they do not.

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:51:12 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
If they can't speak English, no point in them being in an ordinary
school.

Where are these non ordinary schools with places for them.
They don't exist.

Right. There are places for them in an ordinary class.

Are yuo sure there's plenty of parents that say they can;t get teh school they want for their kid in teh UK NOW. so how come three's places avaible for EU kids ?

But not possible to
group them together in a special class.

SO how do they get taught any subject if they can;t read or write English ?

Must be a lot fewer immigrant kids
around, then.

They weren't immigrants they were refugess from bangladesh, pakistan and india.

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 18:20:22 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Jun-16 3:50 PM, Andrew wrote:
On 15/06/2016 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
On 14-Jun-16 9:29 PM, Andrew wrote:

last year the UK taxpayer paid £660 million to EU countries for
providing
healthcare to retired UK nationals living in the EU. But we only
collect a tiny fraction of that amount from EU countries for th cost
of 'free' NHS care for EU nationals...

That is a failing in the NHS systems for identifying those who are not
entitled to free treatment and is nothing to do with the EU itself.



It is *everything* to do with the EU and free movement of people !!!.
British people can and do retire all over the EU and because they
receive the state pension, their host country provides them with
health care, just as they would their own citizens. But the cost
(and some!!) is charged back to the UK government.

British people who are not retired but living in the EU must or
should have medical insurance.

However, because the NHS never charges anyone up front, any health
care costs attributed to EU nationals living in the UK are
difficult to identify and charge back to their host countries.

As I said, that is a failing of the NHS systems, not a fault that can be
laid at the door of the EU.

Are you saying the UK could charge EU citizens for their health care in teh same way, i.e we ask for teh money upfront.

We've been in the EU long enough that they
should have sorted it out by now.

and you think those countries in the EU will want to pay the UK for heal;th care why would they do that when healthcare is free.

On Thursday, 16 June 2016 00:43:00 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And given immigration from the EU is very likely the single most important
reason why those who don't much care about the economy want to leave,
there would be an outcry if we signed up to that sort of deal. It is after
all the only reason UKIP got so many votes at the last election -
immigration.

Sounds a bit like going into macDs for a meal such a choice.
You will have this in your bun you have NO choice.
Which is why I didn't go to mcDs but to wnedys for a burger if I wanted one because I could choose whether or not I have mayo or gherkin .
I also wanted salt McDs couldn't suply that either.

We we must copy Iceland or Norways system I dont;l understand next you'll be saying we have to drive on the same side of the road as they do and eat whales.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 05:47:20 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

However, because the NHS never charges anyone up front, any health
care costs attributed to EU nationals living in the UK are difficult
to identify and charge back to their host countries.

As I said, that is a failing of the NHS systems, not a fault that can
be laid at the door of the EU.

Are you saying the UK could charge EU citizens for their health care in
teh same way, i.e we ask for teh money upfront.

At the point of provision, UK and other EU citizens have to be treated
the same. So, if UK citizens aren't charged, other EU citizens can't be
charged. But if everybody were to be asked for proof of residency/
nationality...

BUT the NHS can then recharge their home health service. They just choose
not to. Which is either because it'd cost more, annually, to do all the
paperwork than they get back - or because they can't be arsed.

Given how much time and effort is spent on claiming that the NHS needs to
be better funded, I would be surprised if it's CBA, wouldn't you?

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
And given immigration from the EU is very likely the single most
important reason why those who don't much care about the economy want
to leave, there would be an outcry if we signed up to that sort of
deal. It is after all the only reason UKIP got so many votes at the
last election - immigration.


ITYM migration the UK government control immigration to the UK. EU
migrants have to be workers to qualify.

Cameron negotiated that EU workers would no longer get 'benefits' on
arrival, but would have to work for 4 years to qualify. Thinking that
would pacify the frothing Torygraph readers - when of course they just
hate all wogs regardless.

And most come here to work anyway. Which for some reason seems odd to the
same Torygraph readers, who far prefer to sit on their arses and moan
about others not working.

--
*My dog can lick anyone

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:51:12 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
If they can't speak English, no point in them being in an ordinary
school.

Where are these non ordinary schools with places for them.
They don't exist.

Right. There are places for them in an ordinary class.

Are yuo sure there's plenty of parents that say they can;t get teh
school they want for their kid in teh UK NOW. so how come three's places
avaible for EU kids ?

You got a place at Eton then?

But not possible to
group them together in a special class.

SO how do they get taught any subject if they can;t read or write
English ?

You seem to have snipped the relevant fart of that...

Must be a lot fewer immigrant kids around, then.

They weren't immigrants they were refugess from bangladesh, pakistan and
india.

Ah. Right. All a good reason to leave the EU?

--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 16 June 2016 00:43:00 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

And given immigration from the EU is very likely the single most important
reason why those who don't much care about the economy want to leave,
there would be an outcry if we signed up to that sort of deal. It is after
all the only reason UKIP got so many votes at the last election -
immigration.

Sounds a bit like going into macDs for a meal such a choice. You will
have this in your bun you have NO choice. Which is why I didn't go to
mcDs but to wnedys for a burger if I wanted one because I could choose
whether or not I have mayo or gherkin . I also wanted salt McDs couldn't
suply that either.

We we must copy Iceland or Norways system

Norway has to allow unfettered immigration from the EU too. Has this
simply not sunk in to you yet?


I dont;l understand next you'll be saying we have to drive on the same
side of the road as they do and eat whales.

Why would I say that? That's more for the 'sovereignty' boys. Who think we
already do have to do everything the same as Europe. But then they think
all the countries in Europe the same anyway. Full of nasty wogs.

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:02:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We we must copy Iceland or Norways system

Norway has to allow unfettered immigration from the EU too. Has this
simply not sunk in to you yet?

As does Iceland. Both are Schengen members, along with Switzerland, so
have zero say in non-EU migration, unlike the UK.

On 16-Jun-16 1:56 PM, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 05:47:20 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

However, because the NHS never charges anyone up front, any health
care costs attributed to EU nationals living in the UK are difficult
to identify and charge back to their host countries.

As I said, that is a failing of the NHS systems, not a fault that can
be laid at the door of the EU.

Are you saying the UK could charge EU citizens for their health care in
teh same way, i.e we ask for teh money upfront.

At the point of provision, UK and other EU citizens have to be treated
the same. So, if UK citizens aren't charged, other EU citizens can't be
charged.But if everybody were to be asked for proof of residency/
nationality...

IME, they will ask for name, address and date of birth at the first
opportunity. From that, they get my National Health Number. Only those
who don't come up with a NH Number need be checked, to see whether they
are paying the NHS surcharge, have an E111 card, or need to pay upfront.


BUT the NHS can then recharge their home health service. They just choose
not to. Which is either because it'd cost more, annually, to do all the
paperwork than they get back - or because they can't be arsed.

Given how much time and effort is spent on claiming that the NHS needs to
be better funded, I would be surprised if it's CBA, wouldn't you?

According to recent reports, it is because the NHS simply doesn't know
how many foreign visitors it treats, because they are not properly
recorded. As I said, a failure of the systems.


--
--

Colin Bignell

whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote

If they can't speak English, no point
in them being in an ordinary school.

Where are these non ordinary schools with places for them.
They don't exist.

Right. There are places for them in an ordinary class.

Are yuo sure there's plenty of parents that say they can;t
get teh school they want for their kid in teh UK NOW. so
how come three's places avaible for EU kids ?

Fascinating to watch how your text deteriorates so
quickly so early in the day for you, presumably as
you become completely blotto even before lunch.

But not possible to group them together in a special class.

SO how do they get taught any subject if they can;t read or write English
?

Kid pick up the language in the place they migrate to very quickly.

Must be a lot fewer immigrant kids around, then.

They weren't immigrants they were refugess
from bangladesh, pakistan and india.

Fantasy.

Dave Plowman (News)

Torygraph readers, who far prefer to sit on their arses and moan
about others not working.


I think you're confusing them with Socialist union members.

Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:02:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


We we must copy Iceland or Norways system


Norway has to allow unfettered immigration from the EU too. Has this
simply not sunk in to you yet?

As does Iceland. Both are Schengen members, along with Switzerland, so
have zero say in non-EU migration, unlike the UK.


Many countries have trade agreements with the EU without free movement.

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 15-Jun-16 3:50 PM, Andrew wrote:
On 15/06/2016 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
On 14-Jun-16 9:29 PM, Andrew wrote:

last year the UK taxpayer paid £660 million to EU countries for
providing
healthcare to retired UK nationals living in the EU. But we only
collect a tiny fraction of that amount from EU countries for th cost
of 'free' NHS care for EU nationals...

That is a failing in the NHS systems for identifying those who are not
entitled to free treatment and is nothing to do with the EU itself.



It is *everything* to do with the EU and free movement of people !!!.
British people can and do retire all over the EU and because they
receive the state pension, their host country provides them with
health care, just as they would their own citizens. But the cost
(and some!!) is charged back to the UK government.

British people who are not retired but living in the EU must or
should have medical insurance.

However, because the NHS never charges anyone up front, any health
care costs attributed to EU nationals living in the UK are
difficult to identify and charge back to their host countries.

As I said, that is a failing of the NHS systems, not a fault that can
be laid at the door of the EU. We've been in the EU long enough that
they should have sorted it out by now.

The NHS would have to put a charging mechanism in place from top to
bottom, in order to be able to work out costs.
The NHS, or at least the hospitals, do know the costs now.
Can you imagine them
doing that in order to charge back foreign nationals who, although
possibly a largish number, are a small number compared to the UK people
who use the NHS.


--
bert

In article , charles
writes
In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Jun-16 3:50 PM, Andrew wrote:
On 15/06/2016 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
On 14-Jun-16 9:29 PM, Andrew wrote:

last year the UK taxpayer paid £660 million to EU countries for
providing
healthcare to retired UK nationals living in the EU. But we only
collect a tiny fraction of that amount from EU countries for th cost
of 'free' NHS care for EU nationals...

That is a failing in the NHS systems for identifying those who are not
entitled to free treatment and is nothing to do with the EU itself.



It is *everything* to do with the EU and free movement of people !!!.
British people can and do retire all over the EU and because they
receive the state pension, their host country provides them with
health care, just as they would their own citizens. But the cost
(and some!!) is charged back to the UK government.

British people who are not retired but living in the EU must or
should have medical insurance.

However, because the NHS never charges anyone up front, any health
care costs attributed to EU nationals living in the UK are
difficult to identify and charge back to their host countries.

As I said, that is a failing of the NHS systems, not a fault that can be
laid at the door of the EU. We've been in the EU long enough that they
should have sorted it out by now.

They've probably worked out that the admin side would cost more that the
money raised.

That is the view in our local hospital trust, but may not be so in the
larger city hospitals.
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 05:47:20 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

However, because the NHS never charges anyone up front, any health
care costs attributed to EU nationals living in the UK are difficult
to identify and charge back to their host countries.

As I said, that is a failing of the NHS systems, not a fault that can
be laid at the door of the EU.

Are you saying the UK could charge EU citizens for their health care in
teh same way, i.e we ask for teh money upfront.

At the point of provision, UK and other EU citizens have to be treated
the same. So, if UK citizens aren't charged, other EU citizens can't be
charged. But if everybody were to be asked for proof of residency/
nationality...

BUT the NHS can then recharge their home health service. They just choose
not to. Which is either because it'd cost more, annually, to do all the
paperwork than they get back - or because they can't be arsed.

Given how much time and effort is spent on claiming that the NHS needs to
be better funded, I would be surprised if it's CBA, wouldn't you?
No I wouldn't. Medical unions have made it clear they regard it as
unethical for them to dirty their hands with money.
--
bert