Theresa May Interview
The Tragedy of Trump
Immigration - The Simple Truth
The Wetherspoon Deception
The EU for Peace in Europe
The Brexit Mandate falacy
The Brexit Dictionary
The Tory Conference 2016 - On the road to fascist Britain
Brexit - A religion is born
The EU - A bank of benefits
The 1975 Referendum - The facts
Dominic Cummings - The Joseph Goebbels of the Vote Leave Campaign
Chancellors Autumn Statement
Personal EU Membership - A Letter to the EU
The Good Old Days before the EU
UKIP and Nuttall the Deceiver
Vote Leave Manifesto of Lies
Fight Brexit Now! Don't be fooled.
EU Referendum A Massive Fraud
Britain's Voter Illiteracy
Minford and Corbyn-Destruction of Manufacturing in Britain




Migrants from Eastern Europe have not ruined the UK economy!

The common claim made by Brexiteers during the campaign was that migrants from ‘new’ EU countries in Eastern Europe, such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, came to the UK and either took jobs from British workers or refused to find work, instead living off our generous benefits system. Whilst it is certainly true that Britain has seen an influx of migrants from former communist states since the EU’s eastern enlargement in 2004, there is no evidence that this has had a negative impact on the UK economy. Indeed, the contrary is the case.

Many EU migrants are skilled workers, who come to Britain to fill skills gaps that simply cannot be filled by UK citizens. At the same time, those workers who come to fill unskilled vacancies rarely directly compete with British people. This is because unskilled jobs in the catering and hospitality sector, in agriculture and in care work (where many migrants find themselves) require long hours, flexibility as to when and where you work etc. As a result these migrants take jobs that British citizens do not want, rather than forcing the native population into long-term unemployment. Indeed, they also create through this work, many of the jobs that British workers will do.

What is more, many of these migrants are young people with few dependants. These people rarely have need for long-term healthcare and are not making excessive use of other public services, a fact that is reflected in their supposed ‘abuse’ of the UK welfare system. In 2014, there were 4.9m working-age benefit claimants in Britain. Of these 92.6% of were British nationals, whilst only 131,000, or 2.5%, were EU nationals.

Indeed, recent HMRC figures showed that EU migrants made a net contribution to the UK economy. In the 2013/14 tax year they paid £3.1 billion in income tax, but only claimed £556 million in benefits, meaning the economy was boosted by £2.5 billion pounds.

As the native British population continues to age, these young, economically active migrants from elsewhere in the EU are exactly what we need to make sure that we are able to continue to grow as a nation and support the expense of our pensions.

The UK is not facing the risk of a mass Turkish (or Albanian, Macedonian etc.) migration anytime soon

One of the most blatant lies of the campaign centred on the threat of mass migration from countries such as Turkey once they join the EU. Turkey has been in discussion to join the EU for almost 30 years but progress has been slow, in part due to the country’s failure to enact important domestic reforms. The main promoter of the lie was Boris Johnson, a founder member of Conservative Friends of Turkey (Along with Douglas Carswell the UKIP MP.) a parliamentary pressure group seeking to engineer Turkish Entry into the EU, for which Johnson campaigned relentlessly. Indeed, since his appointment as Foreign Secretary, Johnson publicly promised to help Turkey to gain access to the EU, presumable to justify his fee from the Turkish Government. Liam Fox was a frequent speaker at events.

When the Turkey lie was exposed, Johnson then claimed that Turks would be given EU Visas and would thus be free to enter Britain. He was well aware that the statement was false simply because Britain is not in the Schengen agreement and would not recognize the visas. He's a confused and troubled mind, but he was wll aware of the lack of truth in his ststements. In an honorouble profession he would be arrested for such deception.

Being in the EU does help us control our borders

The current debates around immigration and the EU promote the idea of an open door policy for migrants. This is based on the idea that free movement within the EU means that we are unable to control who is coming through our borders.

Whilst much of continental Europe is part of the Schengen agreement, which removes checks on borders across the EU, the UK remains outside of this agreement. Therefore we are able to police our borders in a far more stringent way.

The impact of this was seen during last summer’s migrant crisis. Whilst migrants could move easily through the Schengen zone, from Slovenia up into Austria and on to Germany, those migrants trying to reach the UK were stopped from crossing the Channel due to the border checks in place.

At the same time, being within Europe also means that we are able to cooperate with our EU colleagues on a political level to further control who is allowed into the UK. Sharing a common European goal, allowed Britain and France to sign a bilateral agreement on policing the Channel, whilst EU rules surrounding asylum seekers and refugees sees the responsibility more evenly spread across all member states.

In many ways mainland Europe acts as a buffer zone, protecting the UK’s borders. EU policies mean that few non-EU migrants reach Britain over land, as they are stopped, or choose to settle elsewhere. However, if we were to leave the EU there is no guarantee that any of our neighbouring countries would continue to police migration in the same way, opening up the potential of more migrants trying to reach the UK. The Calais controls remain at present, but there is a single political party in France that is in favour of keeping them. The other parties would dispense with them without undue delay.

During many years at the Home Office Theresa May failed, as with many other things, to reduce immigration. Why? Simply because it was a populist soundbite and she was well aware that to do so would damage our economy. Now she can go ahead and lay blame for the damage elsewhere.