Article 50

SHHH!

And breath

e

Thanks ana

Just a question. - do you read every single post?

"Controlling the number of European nationals coming to the UK. A law or a ministerial statement can set a numerical limit on EU migration but the Home Office has a long record of failing to meet numerical limits. Brexit will free the Mayor of Calais to put refugees there on a train to Britain without any obligation to accept their return from a non-EU state."

From this article by an expert.

ukandeu.ac.uk/how-achievable-are-the-uks-12-goals-for-brexit/

DJ
I would not consider one persons report based upon 9 papers, the majority read on the same day as definitive evidence of fact. I would want to know the average cost of such things as providing TESOL teachers, translators within the health service, the cost of additional school places, teachers, the need for additional housing with the provision of infrastructure, roads, waterworks, sewage, etc. To service this additional housing requirement etc.
And, if uncontrolled immigration only brings economic benefits is this okay? should we also consider whether we should ignore some of the alien cultural practices that have now crept into the UK on the basis that there is an economic benefit from those who practice these?
We will probably always welcome immigrants however we must realise we are a small island with finite resources and therefore those who we welcome should be for high value specialist jobs, not for low paid jobs that locals don't fancy doing. Years ago job centres sent people to work and if you didn't go there was no dole.

Of course, whitewave. Why wouldn't I?

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287287/occ109.pdf

This not an important enough bit of evidence for you, Joelsnan?

Or this?
www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/workingwithus/mac/27-analysis-migration/02-research-projects/impact-of-migration?view=Binary

You will possibly find everything you want in the second link, but it is 72 pages long. Make sure you read it carefully.

If you don't believe them, perhaps you can direct me to someone you do believe?

The way this country has talked about immigrants, I would be surprised if any in high value specialist jobs want to come here. They will still be immigrants, after all.

One of the links says that low skilled workers from Romania and Poland are going back home, as they can earn just as much there and are wanted. Our farmers will not be pleased.

"Alien culture practices"?

Sorry, but we are not the Empire now, although some obviously still think so.

fullfact.org/immigration/how-immigrants-affect-public-finances/

I can't recall seeing anything about Tuesday having been the 25th anniversary of the Maastricht treaty.
Here's an interesting article about it.

ukandeu.ac.uk/unhappy-anniversary-maastricht-25-years-on/

From Jonathan Portes.

ukandeu.ac.uk/another-debate-on-immigration-how-about-starting-with-the-facts/

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Joelsnan 15.34

"Did anyone watch the BBC2 programme last night, 9:00pm...After Brexit: The Battle for Europe."

It was very interesting and as you quite rightly say :-

"A very interesting programme which gives a wider perspective to the Brexit arguments."

Sorry, Joelsnan, you've lost me. When have I said that FGM is okay because there's an economic benefit from those who practice it here?
It is actually illegal in the UK, as are all the other practices you cite.
I don't need to travel more to know what they are but they are illegal and anyone practising them should go to court and possibly jail.
I think the word illegal is preferable to alien. No point in making people feel more alienised than they already do.

joelsnan Consanguineous marriage, now you really are entering a ' no go area'
Do you remember when Ann Cryer, the MP for kieghly received abuse for stating that this must be talked about. The cost to the NHS because of this practise is horrendous.
It is estimated that 700 disabled children are born every year.
But 'we' still can't talk about it. But I think that things will change: go back a few years and 'we' couldn't talk about immigration. This is the last taboo.

700 altogether or 700 from consanguineous marriage?
How does stopping immigration prevent that?
The risk of having a disabled child is 2-3%. The risk of having one consanguineously is 5-6%, so twice as high.
Why do we need to talk about it? What do we need to say to stop it?

The issues of FGM and children with very severe disabilities born because of consanguineous marriages are very serious with heartbreaking consequences for those concerned. We are talking about FGM and of course legislated against it a long while ago but it still clearly is a problem. It is being talked about far more than it was and there are various iniatives with schools and so on. Consanguineous marriages are of course quite legal but in some, not all cases, genetically I advisable.DJ , the figures you give are I think only relevant to all such marriages across the board - the % is much greater I believe ( will try and find the link) when there are several generations involved - for example a child of such a marriage marries another child of such a marriage and they then have children. The % would go up again if those children then had children IYSWIM. Areas affected are trying very hard to encourage genetic counselling etc but it's clearly a hard slog to bring about change. I do think it needs to be discussed in a very calm and unemotive way so that it doesn't feed racist outbursts and my understanding is that a lot of work is being done to address the issue as the suffering of the children and parents is very great

I advisable = inadvisable

Why was Joelsnan's post deleted? Everything she mentioned in it has been referred to in subsequent posts by others.

Very odd.

www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview

Not nearly as risky as other factors for which there is no legislation.
Interesting tables here, Rigby.
Perhaps some people have an interest in the risk being thought to be worse than it is.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with article 50, though. Just a strange way to try and keep immigrants out.

If we are going down the route of banning or preventing marriages because of possible genetic abnormalities which may or may not occur in the children of such marriages we are on very dodgy ground. I wonder how many on GN have a child or grandchild with what might be described as an 'abnormality' that was probably inherited? Even with genetic counselling the decision to have a child when there is evidence of inherited problems is a difficult one. My disabled friends would argue that there is nothing wrong with them and it is society that needs to change to accommodate their needs.

Looking at the first graph, I had a 9% risk of my eldest son having a birth defect as I was a teenager when he was born.
First cousins having a child only has a 1.5% risk.
Perhaps we should legislate against teenagers having children?

@Ana sometimes when the contents of a deleted post are repeated , subsequent posts are deleted too. I can only assume this was not exactly the case here.