What would really happen if Nigel Farage had his way?

Rather than return power to the UK, leaving the EU would take power away from our politicians, businesses and our citizens.

The selectivity of UKIP’s facts on Britain’s membership of the European Union and on immigration are well-known.

It is not enough to wrap ideology in unqualified numbers (such as the supposed £55m cost per day of our EU membership, which appears to be at odds with HMRC figures).

Here I compare the information Eurosceptics present with the reality of what would be at stake were UKIP to implement their ideas.

UKIP: ‘A vote for UKIP is a vote to leave the EU and recover power over our national life.’

Peace and stability is power enough.

Nigel Farage wants to take the UK out of the European Union, severing a bond with 27 of our European neighbours who have lived together in peace since the devastating world wars that dominated first half of the 20th century. On awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union in 2012, the Nobel committee chairman said: “the political framework in which the union is rooted is more important than ever”.

It is arguably the diplomacy, cooperation, friendship and respect enjoyed by members of the EU that have kept Europe peaceful for nearly 70 years. We need our leaders at the table, talking, negotiating and understanding each other. UKIP wants Britain to be on the sidelines, away from the mutual agreements and ambitions that bind 28 nations – out of the room and unable to represent Britain or help maintain peace and stability.

Under UKIP, while the representatives of 500 million of our European neighbours would be forging close alliances, Britain would be a remote island. What power would Britain gain in this regard?

Even so, we must consider what Britain would look like if UKIP were representing our interests with our European neighbours, whether or not we remained in the EU. Farage is not known for building relationships: one only has to remember his disgraceful treatment of Herman Van Rompuy on his election as European Council President.

If the EU has been responsible for peace in the last 70 years, it currently costs each person around £75 per year – the balance between what is paid and what is directly reinvested in Britain by the EU. This puts the ‘cost’ of our membership of the EU in a completely different light.

UKIP: ‘Regain control of our borders and of immigration – only possible by leaving the EU.’

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) recently published information that suggests UKIP’s one-way escalator at the White Cliffs of Dover on its election posters is unworthy of informed debate.

According to the ONS, 1.8m Britons live outside the UK in Europe, with 1m of these living in Spain, whilst 2.3m Europeans live in the UK. If Britain pulled up the drawbridge, it would be a certainty that other EU countries would respond and the British dream of living and working in France, Spain, Greece and Italy would be over.

The escalator is moving in both directions and UKIP would have it stopped altogether.

Leaving Europe not only puts at risk our ability to move freely across borders in Europe, it also risks the access to cheap flights that millions of us enjoy for work and pleasure. Small businesses rely on low cost flights to secure essential new opportunities for growth and millions of families and friends rely on this EU advantage to enjoy holidays in the sun.

Far from protecting our borders, leaving the EU would come at a great price and restrict us all in our work and leisure. Our borders would also keep more of us in.

UKIP: ‘Save £55m a day in membership fees by leaving the EU’

Farage’s claim that the EU costs the UK £20bn in membership fees per year is some £11bn higher than figures quoted by the EU Budget Office in 2011. In addition, the 2011 inward spend by the EU in Britain was around £5bn according to the EU Budget Office, which gave a net cost to the UK of £3.6bn for our membership. Whilst this is still an apparent cost, it is significantly different to UKIP’s figure.

Why should we accept a net cost? The EU says that there is a net benefit to the UK through access to European markets and contracts. HMRC and Customs Overseas Trade Statistics show British exports to the EU are valued at around £12bn per month – ie £144bn per year. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) put this figure as high as £211bn and supporting 4.2m British jobs.

UKIP claims this level of trade and employment would be sustained if the UK pulled out of the EU, which is an important consideration that I would like the party to explain.

According to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), our membership of the EU costs the equivalent of 0.4 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and returns a net benefit of 4-5 per cent of GDP. This tenfold return on investment is equivalent to £62bn to £78bn per year – roughly the combined economies of the North East and Northern Ireland. This could also equate to 1.3m jobs if the CEBR data is extrapolated.

Whilst the CBI has been challenged to back up its assertion with more evidence (its figures are based on literature studies), it is for Farage to demonstrate that UKIP’s policy would not put the UK’s economy in jeopardy.

The effect of UKIP’s flagship policy on British business

Britain was once considered a nation of shopkeepers. It is now a nation of small business owners, with 99 per cent of our private sector businesses classed as Small and Medium Enterprises according to the Federation of Small Businesses. This is an important fact because, in 2013, these businesses accounted for 59 per cent of private sector employment and 48 per cent of private sector turnover. Therefore the stakes are high.

UKIP wants a free trade area without political union. How would this work?

Remember that the EU is a place of collective agreement; a space in which politicians from 28 countries agree on countless issues that help businesses to trade with each other. Richard Corbett, a respected and experienced European political figure and a Labour MEP candidate for Yorkshire and the Humber, says: “EU legislation actually cuts red tape by replacing 28 divergent sets of national rules with a single set of pan-European common rules for the common market. This saves businesses from duplication and compliance costs.”

There are two points to make from this. First, if there were no EU Corbett’s observation would be felt painfully by British businesses, particularly by small and medium sized businesses that make up the majority of the UK’s private sector. This would almost certainly introduce barriers to exporting, particularly for SMEs who do not need new barriers in their way.

Considering 60 per cent of the UK’s exports are to Europe, it is conceivable that these new barriers could be a threat to the current level of business enjoyed by our SMEs. This would be a threat to revenue and therefore to jobs.

Second, if UKIP wants to remain a trading partner with the European Union, it would subject British businesses to a set of rules that Britain has no role in creating or changing. Individual countries within the EU would continue to agree standards and laws to which UK businesses would be forced to adhere if they wished to continue trading in Europe.

Rather than return power to the UK, leaving the EU would take power away from our politicians, businesses and our citizens.

Follow David Heathcote on Twitter

54 Responses to “What would really happen if Nigel Farage had his way?”

  1. fgjtyjhj

    This article mentions Brits live in Spain, Greece, Italy the problem however is we cannot control immigration at all we have over a million Eastern Europeans in the UK how many live in the East? It is only 40,000 vs 1 million here , the EU isn’t working because the economies our too different the rich are being flooded by the poor and being dragged down. UKIP would at least allow some control through visa’s which is the system the majority of other countries use e.g. USA, Australia, Canada, China, New Zealand, India no country outside the EU has a free for all because it doesn’t work

    As for the EU keeping peace it is the individual countries that keep peace do you really think if hypothetically Germany wanted to invade France the EU could stop them, we have peace because we want it not through political union, Most areas all over the world e.g. the american continent, south america, australasia, asia have had no war between themselves for decades without political union

  2. guidofawkes

    So if we left the EU Germany would invade?

    Do you think NATO might have something more to do with securing the peace?

  3. Leon Wolfeson

    So you’re ignoring all the studies and going for the emotional lie about “dragged down”. We already have a very harsh points-based VISA system for non-EU countries, but as that’s not strict enough for you… (Also, what about paying students, a massive business…)

    The reality is that visa-free zones are increasingly common – as part of the massive rise of supranational organisations, and currently, we have VISA-free access to 174 countries (the best in the world), and visa-free zones are expanding rapidly. You’d chop that list by 100 or so.

    You’re also utterty ignoring European history.

  4. LB

    Nigel Farage wants to take the UK out of the European Union, severing a bond with 27 of our European neighbours who have lived together in peace since the devastating world wars that dominated first half of the 20th century

    =================

    Nato or the EU?

    Or have you forgotten?

    War in Vietnam – UK France

    Indonesian National Revolution – UK, Netherlands

    First Indochina War – France

    Greek Civil War – Greece UK

    Malayan Emergency – UK

    Mau Mau Uprising – UK

    28 Mordad coup – UK

    Algerian War – France

    First Sudanese Civil War – UK

    Hungarian Revolution of 1956

    Suez Crisis

    Ifni War

    Basque conflict

    Bizerte crisis

    Angolan War of Independence

    Dhofar Rebellion

    Guinea-Bissau War of Independence

    Mozambican War of Independence

    The Troubles

    Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia

    Turkish invasion of Cyprus

    Western Sahara War

    Lebanese Civil War

    Falklands War

    Persian Gulf War

    Ten-Day War

    Djiboutian Civil War

    Croatian War of Independence

    Sierra Leone Civil War

    Algerian Civil War

    Bosnian War

    Croat–Bosniak War

    Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001)

    Albanian Rebellion of 1997

    Kosovo War

    War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

    Iraq War

    War in Somalia (2006–09)

    2010–2011 Ivorian crisis, Second Ivorian Civil War

    Libyan Civil War

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_wars_by_date

    That’s the list of wars where EU members have been involved, and for some reason you seem to think that the EU has kept the peace.

  5. LB

    Visa free visits, not a problem.

    To come here and gain access to work and benefits, a completely different question.

    Cameron says he’s getting tough on welfare. 150 a week for 3 months, before you gain access to welfare. From your post, you think that’s a good thing.

    ie For less than 2p a day, (1.54 in total) you and Cameron have sold access. For a family of 4 that is

    6,051.79 Final Tax Credit

    686.10 in council tax benefit
    13,264,68 in housing benefit (cheap area of London)
    1,770.60 in Child benefit.

    21,773.08 in total

    Then there are the others.

    2K each, in free health care – 8K
    12K in schooling
    10K in free pension.

    Free democracy, free defence, all paid for by someone else.

    45K a year, sold for £1.56.

    You are utterly ignoring the economics of quite a large chunk of migration.

    Anyway, with the cap on welfare spending, the more low skilled migrations, the more the cake is sliced. Remember that when welfare payouts are cut, because the number of claimants has gone up.

  6. Mike Stallard

    I do not think you have quite got the point here.

    1. The EU is not static: it is dynamic. It will not stay the same over the next couple of years because it is run by a Committee and that Committee is determined to make it into the United States of Europe – one big country with one flag, one army, one elected President and one Executive answerable (in theory) to the democratically elected parliament of two houses.
    The Law, too would be European and one unity, as would the Police. Do we really want that?

    2. We are not allowed, by the Lisbon Treaty, to leave. Article 50 looks like it, but there is always the small print which, in fact, puts the permission to leave in the hands of the Commission who openly admit that they want Britain to be part of More Europe.

    3. The CAP and CFP are non negotiable. And the tariff barriers against world trade are organised by the European Government. At the moment, most of the trade is internal because the trade agreements with the rest of the world are so scarce. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-932_en.htm

    4. Europe looks inward: UK has always looked outward to the world where the future lies: Europe is a 20th century concept as you say: it deals with the Second World War.

  7. Leon Wolfeson

    No, their cancellation wouldn’t be an issue for you, I’m sure.

    I’m sure you don’t give anything to this country, as your only skill is apparently making up propaganda. And then you start saying that we need to hurt people more badly, so there will be more poor people, so you need to hurt them more so…

  8. Leon Wolfeson

    1. Thanks for your conspiracy theory.
    2. Actually, it introduced a mechanism to leave. You’re lying.
    3. Those policies funding has gone down a lot. Moreover, the EU has a vast, vast number of trade agreements. We’d lose access to every last one, in your plan.
    4. YOU are looking inwards. Why do you want to bomb non-European countries?

  9. Alan59

    Voting UKIP on Thursday ………….Ah ! cant wait .

  10. Mike Stallard

    Leon, I very much respect your support of an organisation which you believe is the key to the future.

    I do not know quite how to put this. May I recommend the following?

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-684_en.htm

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-932_en.htm

    http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/full_text/index_en.htm

  11. anon

    the artile says ‘lived together in peace’. none of these examples are eu members fighting each other, none is a war in eu lands – with the exception of the troubles. i don’t quite get the point you’re trying to make. its certainly a valid point that eu nations remain agressive, imperialist assholes outside the eu – but that’s a different argument altogether.

  12. Nick Elles

    Nice shortcut. Here’s another one: You’re right lets forget about the economic argument and focus on the NATO issue. Well done you.

  13. LB

    Not true. Every one of those conflicts involves an EU member.

    Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia
    Turkish invasion of Cyprus
    Bosnia
    Kosovo

    Are all part of the EU

  14. Leon Wolfeson

    So you’re making things up. Then “recommending” links. Right.

  15. blarg1987

    Did these conflicts happen when those countries were members of the EU or before? For the record Turkey is not a member of the EU. It may be in the european continent but is not necesarily a member of the European Union.

  16. LB

    Cyprus is.

    For EU members to ‘keep the peace’ they have been particularly warmongering and violent

  17. blarg1987

    And when did the war happen and when did Cyprus join the EU?

  18. LB

    Got to http://www.entitledto.co.uk. You will see its on the list.

    https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/working-out-your-council-tax

    Council Tax Benefit has now been replaced by Council Tax Reduction.

    The numbers however are accurate.

    Your mission, should you dare to accept it, is to go to the first site above and put in a family of 4 (2 kids) on benefits in a cheap place in a cheap part of london.

    Then make sure you add on the extras.

    Now I know why you’re so anti the numbers. It’s because they are so large.

  19. LB

    We are not allowed, by the Lisbon Treaty, to leave.

    =============

    You tell them to f-off. What are they going to do? Invade? Pull up their borders and see millions of unemployed migrants arriving back that they have to support?

    Then there is the trade. Since we import more from them that than vice versa, it will really push their economies down.

  20. LB

    Nigel Farage wants to take the UK out of the European Union, severing a bond with 27 of our European neighbours who have lived together in peace since the devastating world wars that dominated first half of the 20th century.

    ============

    So the date is 1945 and the question is about peace in general.

    Read the original post. It’s not true.

  21. blarg1987

    So your saying, since 1945, we have had a devastating world war?

  22. blarg1987

    So your failing to factor in most people who come here are not a family of 4, but actually young people either by themselves or in a group, who overall:

    have no children thus do not need a job to pay for education (knock of 12 K, do not use the NHS (knock of 2k per person). Do not claim the state pension as they return to their country of origin (knock that off). They do not have housing benefit or child tax credits or claim council tax allowances either.

    The point being yes there are some people who do, but like any system you will get some inderviduals who will try and exploit it, however this is a very small minority over the people who contribut vs those who claim think it is safe to say the contributions win overall.

  23. LB

    No,. The claim that the 27 countries of the EU haven’t been to war, which is the claim in the article, is false.

    Even when you include the question of war in Europe, it hasn’t been true either.

    Now I know you want to change the claim to be EU members haven’t been to war with each other since joining the EU, but that wasn’t the article’s claim was it.

  24. Mike Stallard

    Leon, was it not Jurgen Habermas who said:
    “Niemal die Trollen Fieden.”

  25. blarg1987

    It depends how you read t article, if you read one paragraph and miss off the other then your point is vaild. however you missed off the following paragraph:

    “It is arguably the diplomacy, cooperation, friendship and respect
    enjoyed by members of the EU that have kept Europe peaceful for nearly
    70 years.”

    Now you can read it to mean either europe as a whole or countries since joining the EU, that is down to a persons interpritation.

    You have also admitted it yourself as in your copying of a paragraph you claim it is peace in europe yet in your first post you mention civil wars in Africa.

  26. Mike Stallard

    Well, OK.
    The trouble is that a lot of important and influential people have a lot to lose here. Not only are all the Commissioners in favour of staying in. There are also the Coreper bureaucrats and our own Civil Service and Ministers who depend on the Commissioners’ Directives for their thinking. Then there is the Foreign Office and most of the current Cabinet from the Prime Minister upward. Add on Angela Merkel.
    Just leaving, even if that were possible, would quite probably create a civil (or European?) war. And that is what happened in Nigeria, Rhodesia, USA, Israel, most of South America in the 19th century…
    We need to be like Iceland, Norway or even the coalition of Better off Together at the moment in Scotland and produce a plan which will deal with the Commissioners’ plans for More Europe – the USE with elected President. Only with a British consensus can we learn to live with the European tragedy.
    And such a plan is actually being formed as we speak.

  27. blarg1987

    To quote a phrase, is it not better to be in a tent pi**ing out, then outside the tent p**sing in?

    I do not disagree the EU does need reform, for example new members only get full membership rights once their standard wage matches the mean wage of the existing EU members etc.

    The problem with leaving is that we will not be free, we will be less free, as rules and regulations will be dictated to us by companies that we want to sell products and services to.

    Iceland and Norway have to pay a large fee to the EU to just even be allowed to trade with them, and they also have to agree to most if not all EU regulations.

    So out of those two options I think we are better being inside the tent keeping warm by the fire and trto change things then freezing our asses off in the bloody cold.

  28. Mike Stallard

    I invite you to go on holiday in either Iceland, recovering from national bankruptcy, and Norway, a small poor country on the edge of Europe.
    Iceland, though bankrupt, is about the same as us. Norway? A trip to McDonalds for four people to have a bun, some fries and a Coke costs over £100.00!

  29. LB

    It was picked as a slightly below average family. Less than 2.3 children.

    do not use the NHS (knock of 2k per person)

    Nope. It’s insurance. You are forced to pay. I haven’t used the NHS. Can I get a rebate? Why should a migrant get off paying but the Brits have to pay? A touch of racism there, isn’t there?

    Do not claim the state pension as they return to their country of origin

    Nope. You can’t deny an EU citizen a UK pension under EU law. Think again.

    ====================

    Look there are two ways of looking at it. First is the average. If the average migrant pays their way, then baring the large side effects, they are welcome. Problem is, that’s not the case.

    Second approach is the better one, look at it from the individual cases. Here again you go down the wrong route. It’s not if they make a contribution. That worker with the family who ends up on welfare was and is making a contribution. It’s less than 2p a day, for which they receive 45K in benefits. What matters is NET contributions. Do they pay in more than they take out. On the individual basis they don’t.

    Again, you haven’t put any numbers to the amount you need to tax migrants to break even. Heck they can’t even manage that with Brits.

  30. blarg1987

    Again you are assuming they will use the service before they return home, which they may not do. it is correct we do not get a rebate on national insurence but neither do we on our car or home insurence if we never use it. Add to that, if everyone claimed for their car or house insurence the industry would go bankrupt, and no there was no racism said or implied.

    You are right they have a right to a percentage of the full state pension they pay towards, however they may not claim it, or when they leave the monies transferred to their countroies equivelent.

    Be curious to see your raw data on what migrations contribute over their cost and does it include secondry income e.g. corporataion taxes paid by companies that benefit form their labour etc.

    Also yor dataset is based on worse case scenario which is a reasonable way to do it, but not the real life case. Not everyone who will be unemployed will live in London being one fault with the calculations you use.

    Every indervidual basis is different, and there are many factors that can influence said description, for example years worked, if they are mortgage free, have secondary assets etc.

  31. LB

    Again you are assuming they will use the service before they return home, which they may not do. it is correct we do not get a rebate on national insurence but neither do we on our car or home insurence if we never use it. Add to that, if everyone claimed for their car or house insurence the industry would go bankrupt, and no there was no racism said or implied.

    ==============

    That’s in the nature of insurance. All people eligible pay, but only some will use. That’s the young and its brits and migrants. Why did you then go and justify migration by saying

    “do not use the NHS (knock of 2k per person)”

    In other words, they don’t use the NHS so you don’t charge them the cost of the insurance. You won’t say the same for Brits. That’s racist.

    ==============
    You are right they have a right to a percentage of the full state pension they pay towards, however they may not claim it, or when they leave the monies transferred to their countroies equivelent.

    ==============

    So you can’t ignore it. Either they get the transfer, which has a cost, or they claim later, when retired, which has a cost.

    ==============
    Also yor dataset is based on worse case scenario which is a reasonable way to do it, but not the real life case.

    ==============

    Nope, its not the worse case. It’s pretty typical of people on welfare. There are worse cases. I’ve ignored JSA, I’ve ignored any disability issues, and left off some of the costs.

    The reason is as you say everyone is different, and what the left wants to do is to not treat migrants as being different. Hence my desire to see an objective test for individuals, not a blanket policy.

    I’ll take it you accept that the family of 4 isn’t making a net contribution. For less than a 2p a day contribution, they are clearly taking out more. It’s the reason I’ve picked it as one case. Not uncommon, but a clear example of not making a net contribution.

    On the other side, there are plenty of examples of migrants who do make a net contribution.

    The questions are then.

    1. Where is the boundary and how do you calculate it?
    2. How to get more of the net contributors?
    3. How to stop the net consumers from consuming?
    4. How to make sure any side effects, positive and negative are included?

    Strikes me as the correct approach. It’s non racist. Completely because its an economic test.

  32. LB

    To quote a phrase, is it not better to be in a tent pi**ing out, then outside the tent p**sing in?

    ==============

    I take it that you are of the Edward John Smith persuasion. Having to go down with the sinking ship.

  33. blarg1987

    So by the way you are working things out, is the insurence industry bust as the money paid in, is less then the liabilities it is insured for?

    “do not use the NHS (knock of 2k per person)”

    In other words,
    they don’t use the NHS so you don’t charge them the cost of the
    insurance. You won’t say the same for Brits. That’s racist.

    No you misread my point, you can knock of 2K of the cost of a migrant as they are less likely to use the NHS so they are a net contributer to it not a net cost, that is not racist.

  34. blarg1987

    No I am off the persuasion that you change the design of the ship in the first instance by staying on all the committees through out the design, launch, snagging and commisioning process to make sure the ship is designed and navigated that it won’t sink, rathern then being a passanger on something you have no control over when the ship does end up sinking.

  35. Leon Wolfeson

    If you don’t know, why do you think I’d be interested?

  36. Leon Wolfeson

    Where did he say he was a UKIP voter?

  37. Leon Wolfeson

    But he won’t make as big a profit if we stay in the EU, see.

  38. Leon Wolfeson

    Nope, you’re inventing nonsense. Magical extras, as you’ve been caught out in a lie about CTB and are scrambling to recover.

    I don’t take “missions” from rich people. If you want me to work for you, pay me. Up front.

  39. Leon Wolfeson

    Ah yes, we’re all serfs to you. Indeed, your massively negative NET contribution is an issue.

  40. Leon Wolfeson

    Of course only allowing the 1% to travel strikes you as the right approach. You need more rich people to leech off the taxpayer here, after all. And you gotta block the British poor from having healthcare or housing.

    Keep saying it’s non-Racist, when it’s Anti-British, your pariah nation would have no trade worth mentioning, like NK.

  41. wowlookatallthisinfo

    Uhhh, perhaps get your facts right about war in South America… because it was only a few decades ago that Mexico had its civil war, Venezuela currently, Colombian armed conflicts in peru, Cerepa war etc etc etc. I’m surprised no one has called you out on that daft comment.

    And besides that, I find it hilarious how Brits justify shutting down immigration as a form of control that allows jobs to be brought back to the UK. The wool has been pulled down so far over your eyes it isn’t funny.

    1) Unemployment is NOT caused from immigration. “Illegal” immigrants are not coming into your job at the shopping centre and taking work on from Tescos… they’re in a field in the middle of nowhere doing long hour, low skilled, low pay, precarious agricultural work that many British people do NOT want to do. They are hardly vying for your job at the marketing firm you’ve always wanted to work at.

    2) Secondly, if we are talking about European migrants who are flooding the job market, one should examine the whole notion of UKIP’s policy… they are saying that it is maybe, possibly, likely that all the problems of British people being unemployed is a result of Romanians, and by possibly removing all of them there MAY be more jobs available for the Brits… I’d love to see some stats as to prove this? Or to even suggest that immigration rather than POOR GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT is responsible for this lack of unemployment. If the government opened up more industries for jobs you would have more jobs… it isn’t because of these immigrants that you are having such a difficult problem with finding work, it’s because the labour industry is shot to shit within the UK, courtesy of Thatcher. But choosing to blame all of the bad things about the British economy and labour market on immigrants is foolish and dumb. There is no magic cure for unemployment, and nor is scapegoating the right thing to do. If you want change get a government who opens up more schools, hospitals, daycare centres to provide jobs for workers by setting regulated employment standards (if this is your fear) instead of corporations and the government keeping all the billions for their new cars and houses.

    Another thing to think about it why companies are not choosing to hire British nationals. Capitalist companies want to make as much money as possible for the lowest cost of labour. If you were a big corporation who wanted to make billions a year why would you ever want to hire Brits who get 6.30 an hour over outsourcing to other countries who offer both deregulated working conditions AND cheaper wages? Therein lies a lack of jobs because of CAPITALISM rather than immigration.

    3) It’s so amusing to me to see Britons ignoring the visa system currently in place. For example, did you know that it is incredibly hard already for one to get any visa from England? For example, in order for someone to move over here from North America they must have 62000 pounds within their bank account prior to their departure. Or they must already have a job paying over 18,600 pounds a year within Britain. This average is more than what some Brits even make a year… yet immigrants who have to secure this work, have financial savings, go through rigorous application forms and also have to pay 800 pounds for the damn application are the cause of all this unemployment and the downturn of the economy… wait huh?

    I cannot be frustrated more with the stance of UKIP supporters.

  42. aPeZrOsE

    My grandma comes from India, me and my mother were born in the UK, what would happen to us? If UKIP got into power

  43. Linzi

    We can all paint a pretty picture of a United Europe but it is not at all the same as the United States of America there are too many languages, different cultures and countries with a lack of regard for us to truly unite in a positive way and of course you have the minority who have pure self interest and pure greed for money and power.

    Germany instinctively wants to rule and control but we do not want to be ruled and controlled by them that’s why we fought 2 world wars. Germany should be no more in control of the EU than any other of the main countries and I believe the UK contributes more per head than the Germans anyway!

    On the point of trade the article ignores the fact that the majority of EU product standards are based on either the UK British Standard or the German TUV standards. Given this does he really think that the EU would just tear them all up and develop European standards which historically are less stringent than UK ones?

    The UK will also always be taken advantage of unless it changes a lot of its rules on healthcare education welfare etc, the UK will struggle to keep any sort of control of its country , Cameron has already been outnumbered on important issues.

    So 1.8 million UK citizens live in Europe, and 2.3 million eu citizens in the UK. The question is just how many of the former have moved to Spain etc to retire on their own money ( buying property and investing in that country) and without recourse to benefits from that country compared to eu citizens in the UK. I think the larger proportion would be from our side. Would Spain, Portugal etc really wish to lose the “grey” income? I think not. But if they did then those people could return back to the UK and invest/spend their money here. On the basis of this article the UK would still be 500,000 people better off which would probably mean that we would need at least 250,000 less houses to be built. This article has made very poor use of statistics after.having a go at UKIP for their use of statistics.

    Britain seems to look after everyone who comes its way, are we .respected for it as a country by any of these EU countries even the poor ones – I think not. This is despite the UK being the 2nd largest contributor to the EU budget!! Without the rebate we would be the largest!! Yet just how much influence do we really have for our money?

    Perhaps if this country reversed its bad decisions may be less would leave and more would want to come back! There are areas in britain I would not choose to live in even if i was subsidised to do so and that is because of bad uncontrolled management of immigration. I particularly do not like the influx of Eastern Europeans for several valid reasons. Do we really think these people will want to stay in the jobs that we don’t want, do you really think they are hear to integrate and benefit the British society as well as themselves? Do they have any respect for us as a nation? Many years ago the answer would have been yes but not now, and uncontrolled immigration is part of the cause of decline in my opinion. The immigrants are not the same as the ones that came in the 1950’s

    A United Europe only exists where it suits, where people want to get something out of it for themselves. I remember when the Eurovision Song Contest was about talent now it is about clans of countries sticking together and has been for some years now – united Europe we say!

    I am a small business owner and am so glad that UKIP exists and I will keep supporting them – well done Nigel Farage!

  44. stefan I

    I have heard many times that EU membership costs £55m per day but i have never heard how much profit uk makes a day from the eu market. Nobody talks about that.

  45. Mary Ann

    Ha ha

  46. Mary Ann

    The EU was started to keep the peace, and it has done so very well, no country inside the EU has been at war with another, but other European countries have had fighting although not, all out war.

  47. Mary Ann

    The migrants pay for themselves they are also putting money into the system and we need them to pay for our pensions in the future, we are not having enough babies.

  48. Mary Ann

    2.3 Children is above average the average family in Britain has 1.9 children, below the replacement rate of 2.1 most of Europe is a demographic time bomb with birth rates below 1.5. and an ageing population, without immigration the next generation of olds are going to suffer.

  49. Mary Ann

    In other words, they don’t use the NHS so you don’t charge them the cost of the insurance. You won’t say the same for Brits. That’s racist.

    He isn’t saying that they shouldn’t pay NI he is saying that they won’t use the NHS because they are young and healthy. you could call it ageist.

Leave a Reply