rebeccajo

I love how many facts refute the rhetoric of the Daily Mail.

chris197337

You know that data only refers to a 2008 report's estimate of tax revenue from the countries accepted to the EU in the last wave of 2005. So it is based on three years worth of data from 2009, things have changed since then and there are many other types of migrants other than the "A8".

That isn't evidence, it's an anecdotal comment.

Pistolpete2

It isn't the migrants column that matters, it's the non-migrants. It just happens that I used migrant data to provide the evidence because that is where I had seen it.

It's not rocket science - it's pretty obvious that a country that is running a multi-billion pound current account deficit on government expenditure - more now than in the years provided in the report, not less - is likely to have a population that overall is using more than they pay in though what government expenditure is allocable to the population as a service is up for conjecture.

It also seems straight-forward to assume that migrants, who typically/often arrive without kids to be state-educated or themselves for that matter, work and prosper and then leave before they become a drain on state-provided health services, are likely to use a net less government service proportion than the indigenous population. The clutch piece is the proportion of migrants who are actually skilled and contribute this way and we leave this, trustingly, to our government to take care of for us.

It is also important to remember that the UK is still suffering from a brain drain, so that the most able UK citizen UK born university graduates are looking elsewhere for their prosperity, in the same way as those migrants, and this would also contribute to the net consumption proportion for the remainder. They have used state provided services and will now pay their taxes somewhere else.

transatlantic

I just picked some really British looking places! Despite what others have said I really can't see the £ rising much against the $ for the forseeable future so I can't see that being much of a problem.

WEBlue

Are you certain about this, Chris? I don't think this used to be true....

What about someone on a spouse/family visa, for instance, who has come to settle in the UK with his/her British spouse. That person would get no referrals before the 5 years needed for ILR? What if s/he became seriously ill?

Pistolpete2

I don't think anybody would be expecting Sterling to rise meaningfully against the dollar anytime soon. Sterling is THE most shorted currency out there meaning that George Soros look-alikes are actually in the market banking on significant declines from here.

What has been said is that it might be a mistake to bank on any significant further decline when making plans and rather, assume $1.50 and if it works at that then fine.

Pistolpete2

Go find four really British looking places in what looks like being the area that meets the OP's prerequisite:

1. Mild/dry
2. On the edge of Urban
3. Likely to be sociable crowd
4. Access to open country for the dog
5. Pretty on your doorstep
6. Good access to culture - museums/theatre/arts
7. Transport connections
8. Good value in terms of renting

Bradford-on-Avon area
Pevensey/West Ham - Eastbourne
Dorchester - Dorset
Hereford/Ledbury area
Topsham/Clyst St George - Exeter
Mudeford/New Milton - Bournemouth - Pretty? New Forest/shoreline? also Wimborne
Salisbury/Wilton

chris197337

That's right, they'd have to pay for any referral or similar to a specialist.

chris197337

Who cares who is short the pound, even if the volumes validate your assertion, it could be a hedge against another position or anything. Nobody cares about the pound, most of the time it gets moved by interest in other currencies. Eg people may be long dollars as there have been a lot of bullish figures this year and the Moody's news was obviously bearish for the pound.

Nobody knows what is in the future, whatever we do know is already priced in so if these punters are pushing the price action down even more then they'll get stopped out and the pound will come back. Credit markets are settling, some fairly bullish stuff is coming out in the UK so I'm fairly positive for the medium-term, but over dollars you never know as they are affected by the same things.

chris197337

Absolute spurious non-sense. You still aren't providing any evidence or facts, just arbitrary assertions and jumping ahead to unsubstantiated and irrelevant conclusions.

Pistolpete2

Have a nice day!

WEBlue

I don't believe this is true (at present). I know of one US/UK couple who entered for settlement in the UK under the old spouse visa rules(before last July). The American spouse has been referred to several specialists for a skin condition and has not had to pay for those referrals.

Can you point to evidence of your opinion on this? I find lots of web evidence to the contrary--that a spouse visa confers full rights to the NHS before ILR...not after. That means referrals, hospital treatment, everything that a settled Brit can receive....

chris197337

The enforcement of it is a little sketchy. When you register for an NHS number(a GP surgery) they should ask a full set of questions, but they didn't ask my wife, who is currently here on a spouse visa. So likely wouldn't know any different, it's the responsibility of the visa holder to let the relevant body know about their status, the only real punishment would be if they applied for ILR or FLR and the UKBA officer found out about the treatment.

They also don't have any recourse to public funds, but it's also up to them to declare their immigrant status to the Benefits Agency.

I know this is true as we've been through it ourselves. But I think it was in the fine print of some visa documentation we recived which I can't find now so this;

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...able/DH_074376

Says It suggests 12 months residence is a definition of being a permanent resident, but how can you be a permanent resident if your visa isn't? Only ILR makes you a de facto permanent resident.

sallysimmons

Amen. My ancestors were Irish migrants who built railways and infrastructure around the world and were always scorned and insulted and called leeches. In America today, the Mexicans are the ones who do all the grunt labour and get nothing but grief for it.

At the moment, the Daily Mail is scaring everyone here about the Romanians. My mother is convinced all Romanians are crooks and thieves and that by next year the streets of England will be awash with beggars. When reality turns out differently, the Daily Mail will choose another group to vilify and people like my mum will be scared of them. It's pathetic.

dunroving

It looks to me like "intend" is the key word here - in which case a spousal visa could be regarded as a step towards permanent residence (via ILR) and therefore one indicator of "intent" to reside permanently.

I have to say that I have never read on here before that spouses of UK citizens/residents were deemed to be ineligible for routine NHS treatment. Either NHS staff have been lax with BE members who have been in that situation or they are in fact deemed to "intend" to reside permanently by virtue of being married to a permanent resident and citizen, and therefore eligible for routine treament.