UKC

A superb article in today's Financial Times from Michael Moritz, the Welsh-born Silicon Valley venture capitalist.

His starting point is the current EU investigation into Google's predominant Android mobile phone operating system. This is the EU's second investigation into Google, and this is where a substantial proportion of our EU contribution is going - into paying lawyers to attack successful companies.

He points out that compared with countries such as the US, China and India the EU does not produce very many students with PhDs in technical subjects, and the state of school science education also does not compare well. Nor does the EU produce many patents in technological areas compared with its competitors.

What the EU does do is to spend its citizens' taxes in Canute-like legal actions against the world's most successful companies - when they launched their investigation against Microsoft Google was barely a year old. And when they've finished with Google no doubt they'll take up with some present-day startup.

The eight most valuable technology companies in the EU have a current combined value of $32 billion. That is 10% of the value of Facebook or 6% of the value of Google.

If the EU attempted to create value rather than to attack valuable companies it might be worth being part of.

In reply to John2:

>He points out that compared with countries such as the US, China and India the EU does not produce very many students with PhDs in technical subjects, and the state of school science education also does not compare well.

A serious but unconnected problem, surely, and one that would most definitely not be improved were we to leave, bearing in mind the contribution the EU makes to funding university research.

jcm

In reply to John2:


Got a link? I'd be interested to see the figures.

How is the 'state of school science education' being measured?


Off-topic - but, since the point of the Canute story is regularly misunderstood, let me point out that, far from trying and failing to stop the advance of the tide, Canute was trying to demonstrate to his obsequious courtiers that he in fact had no such power to do so.

Right - got that off my chest ...


These are stock market valuations, right? In that respect, Facebook is a highly successful company (and so was MySpace, once!) - but what does it actually produce?

In reply to John2:

And if those very successful companies are achieving their success by stifling competition then a)it's not going to encourage new entrepreneurs or inventors and b) if the Eu doesn't challenge them, who wil?

In reply to John2:


Considering what a mess the US patent system is in I am not sure thats actually a bad thing.


I am fairly certain the EU recovered the costs of its lawyers from MS. The USA, of course, also took action against MS for their anticompetitive behaviour


It does. However its rather hard to do. You need the right mix of decent universities, decent social life and decent investors.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

You hit the nail on the head. Anybody working in technical subjects in academia is (or should be) appalled by the prospect of leaving the EU.

In reply to John2:


If by "substantial" you presumably mean a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

In reply to Removed User:


Can you make a detailed argument in support of that claim?

(I suppose you mean EU grant money? But that comes from taxation in the first place. Is your claim that we get 'more' than our natural share of it by being in the EU?)

In addition: what about those people working in 'non-technical subjects'?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Can't remember the exact figures but the UK gets something like twice its 'share' of EU funded research spending. But its more than just the money, participation in EU funded projects leads to increased collaboration between teams across the EU which is good for research

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I'm aware that Canute was demonstrating that no man can master the tides, but nonetheless the myth of what he was trying to do has provided us with a useful figure of speech. Just as lemmings are not really attempting to commit suicide when they jump off cliffs, but are jumping into the sea in an attempt to migrate.

In reply to Doug:

But if the UK were not contributing to the EU budget it would be able to choose what to do with the money saved. There is no reason why it should not continue to fund university research. As for cross-European scientific research, CERN was established in 1954 and the Treaty of Rome dates from 1957.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Spot on. In an interview the other day on R4, it was highlighted that the UK's scientific head honchos had almost unanimously stated they were in favour of remaining in the EU due to the level of funding received. Britain punches far above is weight in science, not least because of this finding. I'll try and find a link to the piece I refer to.

In reply to Fraser:


They are brilliant at giving us some of our own money back . We should be very grateful of this and call all this talk of a referendum off.

In reply to Fraser:


I heard that piece. The person that did the research said they struggled to find a scientist who wanted to leave.

In reply to Fraser:


Martin Rees - a man worthy of our respect - puts the figure at 93%. See e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/martin-rees/british-science-eu-membership_b...


But money? That's such a miserable argument, isn't it?

In reply to John2:


Or, man who made fortune with Google speaks out against EU investigating Google.

Incisive or simple self interest?

In reply to John2:

Investigate Google for what?

In reply to John2:


Just as you can grumble when the EU "tells us what to do", you need to accept that sometimes those guidelines or actions might be improving outcomes that would not necessarily be achieved in the absence of those directions. Investment in scientific research is potentially a good example of such measures. In a UK where raising income tax rates seems to be political anathema I have less confidence in any UK government's commitment to research spending than I do in Europe's.

In reply to Greasy Prusiks:


Whether or not they are using their dominant position to force phone manufacturers using android to use other Google products and thus killing competition. I think.

Seems to me like the sort of thing regulatory bodies should be doing.

In reply to John2:



Could it not be the case that the EU companies lag behind in part because of the stranglehold that the likes of Google have? Viewed that way the EU investigation is in part an attempt to redress the very issue you raise.

I don't know what the original piece was like but the way you've worded it is pretty far from incisive IMO. In fact it's positively toothless.

In reply to DaveHK:
OK thanks for that. Tbh I've no idea who should be doing that.

In reply to OP- I don't know if the case you mention has been a waste of money but regardless it still seems a pretty trivial issue. I can't imagine it's a large amount of money and it's only one case so not really statistically significant. It's also not an argument for why the UK specifically should leave the EU (I've yet to hear one of those).


EDIT: Whilst I'm here people should remember that the first versions of what would become the EU were set up to keep Europe peaceful- a job it's done admirably. Surely that alone is worth staying in for?

In reply to John2:


Do you think that would happen?

Scientific funding in the UK is pretty poor. It's a real shit fight.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Most EU science funding is recirculated from member states' contributions, so what you say does not necessarily follow. Further, in the UK, the EU funds comparatively few PhD places in STEM fields?

In reply to John2:


Quite. The idea that we could only collaborate with EU members if we are a member is a farce. Look at the members of the European Southern Observatory for example. Pretty sure Brazil isn't in the EU.

There are plenty of good reasons to stay but that's no excuse to twist facts as parts of accadamia are doing.

In reply to Removed User:

I'm an early career (MRes moving onto PhD later this year) scientist working in earth systems stuff, and I'm pretty nervous about Brexit. Quite frankly appalled by Johnson and Gove and other c*ckwombles talking with certainty about shit they know bugger all about. For all the flaws in our higher education system, the UK still punches way above it's weight in terms of science output, a situation that is massively helped by substantial EU funding.

In reply to Fraser:


I suspect, given that the UK's top scientists are probably amongst our most logical thinkers, they may have any number of reasons for supporting the REMAIN side of the argument apart from just securing their own funding streams.

Slightly cheeky comment, I know. UKC's favourite top scientist, Coel, may well be along in a bit. Judging from his recent posts, I think he's for Brexit, but also he may have gone climbing today - good for him.!

Martin

In reply to the thread:


I'm always amazed by the gratitude to the EU for giving us back some of the money that we give them. Yes, the EU is an important funder of science, but the UK has been a large net contributor to the EU in every year that it has been a member of the EU.

If the UK were not in the EU then the government could just give scientists the money directly, rather than via the EU.

So is the argument that the government would take the opportunity to reduce science spending, by diverting that money to something else? Possibly, I guess, though that's rather a different issue than the merits of the EU.

Other than being a conduit for funding, the EU really does not facilitate international cooperation in science. Science is sufficiently international that that happens anyhow. My research group collaborates with other groups in both EU (France, Belgium, Italy) and non-EU countries (the US, Switzerland, Norway, South Africa), etc, and really it makes little difference which is which.

Note that all the big European scientific collaborations -- CERN, ESO, ESA, ITER, etc -- are *not* EU projects, and whether we were in the EU would make no difference to our membership.

In reply to John2:

I think it's wrong to say that a "substantial proportion" of "our EU contribution" goes towards legal actions of this nature - at least by any accepted definition of "substantial". Do you know the actual percentage?

However, this is precisely the sort of thing that the EU should be doing. Using it's clout to ensure that large global companies are actually operating in the public interest, rather than just being "successful" at the public's expense.

This is much more difficult for smaller countries to achieve on their own. Global companies can simply play one smaller country off against another.

I am not against successful companies per se. It's perfectly possible to devise a regulatory framework which supports enterprise, encourages shareholder investment and safeguards the public interest at the same time. But for large global companies the regulations need to be established on a global level. The EU can contribute to that in a way that UK alone cannot.

Martin

In reply to Coel Hellier

Mmmmm. Not sure about that comment on collaboration considering one of my friends heads up nuclear fusion research for the EU in Brussels .he decides if a project gets funding or not in that area.

In reply to Martin Hore:


I also find the assumption that lots of patents = good progress in science and technology odd. Aren't the large tech companies constantly spewing out patents on the pettiest little things like radius of curvature of the edges of their products in some legal game of chess with their competition? Sounds like the opposite of progress to me.

In reply to neilh:



Collaboration and funding are different things entirely. People collaborate across national and continental boundaries all the time in the absence of a unified funding body.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Might be true for physics, but much less so for the areas of biology where I work

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Coel have you got that 7%er tattoo yet?

In reply to Martin Hore:


Exactly. It's hardly a surprise that some large multinational companies with a dominant market position would prefer it if the EU DG Comp took less interest in them, is it?

Of course we have our own national CMA who have more or less the same remit but obviously a competition investigation has a bigger impact if it's EU-wide, and some market abuses are clearer.

In reply to John2:

That stuff about the US being much better than Europe on science education is plain nonsense. They are below par in the OECD in maths and at par on science (poor results for the world's richest country).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathematics_and_Sci...

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=1

On STEM PhDs what he says is true but only because too many local students are studying in subjects not needed by the economy and because where the shortages lie they suck up talent from around the world.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/stem-crisis-or-stem-surplus-yes-an...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


You must know that's not true. Horizon 2020 is the biggest of all and very much an EU project, although it is true that outside countries can take part under certain conditions.

In reply to wintertree:

Does not the funding require you to have collaborative partners anyway, in other words they are hand in hand.

In reply to neilh:


You get into the nitty gritty of individual projects with this question - some classes of project need funding for all partners, and the EU provides a means to this. Many other collaborations at the small scale manage through separate grants, and at the large scale through the formation of dedicated project consortia that negotiate funding across international and intercontinental lines - e.g. ESO and ITER; these coordinate funding across the world so it seems daft to predicate the UKs involvement on EU membership.

In the last few years RCUK and NIH/NSF have started piloting harmonised UK/US funding. I dare say the UK could manage something similar with the ERC if it left Europe. In fact the ERC already do exactly this - you can apply for an H2020 for example with non-EU partners, and they can seek matching funds at a national level, this all works quite well from seen from what little I've been directly involved in.

Of course the short term could be dire - if the government have given similar thought to Brexit that the Scottish government gave to Scottish independence, the immediate headless chicken period after a No vote could be a disaster...

In reply to wintertree:


ESA is not Horizon 2020. From the H2020 website "Horizon 2020 is the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme ever with nearly €80 billion of funding" Only 20% of ESA funds come from the EU, which is a completely separate organisation.

In reply to MG:


Just assume my brain switched of entirely and I read "New Horizons" even though that's a NASA and not ESA mission. Total brain fart! As I can't down vote my own stupid message I deleted it...

In terms of H2020, it may be an EU initiative but the UK pays and and gets paid back. Non EU members can and do participate in H2020 funded collaborations using national level funding, there's no reason a post Brexit UK couldn't do exactly the same.

In reply to wintertree:



Maybe, maybe not. Either way, the influence we would have over funding would be substantially reduced, I think. Decisions on broad areas of funding allocation are made at Commission level, where we would no longer have direct input or much influence.

In reply to MG:


This is a trade off though - we have partial control over all ERC funds, we would have full control over the UK contribution. So crudely (influence)*(dosh) is invariant. Does influence becoming more locally controlled benefit it? If it doesn't, that suggests more fundamental problems than EU membership...

In reply to Martin Hore:

You're right, I was wrong to say 'substantial'. But these investigations do cost money, which would be better spent in addressing the reasons why the EU is so far behind the USA in the tech world - the EU countries have double the population of the USA, and are not lacking in well-regarded universities.

The majority of posts on this thread have drifted into a discussion of whether the level of funding for UK scientific research would be maintained after Brexit - that's not the point. The point is why do we lag so massively behind the USA with our current level of funding.

In reply to Trevers:


'appalled', 'cockwombles', 'shit', 'bugger all' - this is simply a rant.

What in detail, are you criticizing Gove for here?

In reply to Rob Parsons:



This sort of thing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36074853

All the "yeah it'll be fine, it'll all work itself out, they'll be begging for us back, stop worrying" type stuff that's been coming from their side.

Saying I'm "appalled" isn't ranting, they're (certainly Johnson) putting personal ambitions ahead of the country's future and people's livelihoods.

In reply to Trevers:


If the UK votes to leave the EU, then realpolitik will apply and there will obviously be bilateral trade agreements made: those are in the interests of *both* sides. Nobody can say how those would turn out - they might be better or worse than the status quo. Gove gave an optimistic outlook on the prospects of those - but I wouldn't have expected him to do any different.

An interesting subtext in his comments is the prospect of 'democratic liberation' of the entire continent subsequent to a UK 'out' vote. In that, perhaps he is imagining (or hoping for) the collapse of the entire EU project? If so, the comment echoes Varoufakis's *warning* that the UK's vote is not necessarily simply a binary 'in/out' choice.


For what it's worth I respect Gove - and am happy to listen to what he has to say - but ignore Johnson. (The latter has zero credibility on this: how could he, when he took several days after the announcement of the referendum to arrive at a decision he now claims is one of principle?)

In reply to MG:


Horizon 2020 is not a project or collaboration in the way that CERN, ESO, ESA and ITER are. Horizon 2020 is just an umbrella name for the various funding programmes the EU runs.

In reply to John2:


Yes, theoretically but - ignoring for a moment the fact that as a consequence of being part of the EU we get much more research funding back than we pay in - can you imagine the current or prospective bunch of clowns doing anything useful with the notional savings? Most likely it would be spent in an attempt to defend the pound from its inexorable collapse as investment confident disappears.

In reply to Peter Metcalfe:


The same way investment confidence disappeared when we didn't join the Euro (recalling the last time we had all this ``we need to be part of it or else the consequences are unthinkable'' scaremongering)?

In reply to wintertree:

The ERDF funded 50 PhDs at Liverpool and Lancaster University, all of them some type of environment-biased engineering or related. I was one of them. Lancaster are bidding for another batch of funding next year.

In reply to Peter Metcalfe:

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/uk-research-and-european-un...

'Over the period 2007 – 2013, the UK contributed €77.7 billion to the EU'

'The UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) report an indicative figure for the UK’s contribution to EU research and development of €5.4 billion over the period 2007 – 2013. During this time, the UK received €8.8 billion in direct EU funding for research, development and innovation activities'

So we paid the EU 77.7 billion euros and got 8.8 billion back in research funding. Note the word indicative - it means that in theory 5.4 billion was the portion of our 77.7 billion dedicated to research. It doesn't alter the fact that we paid 77.7 billion in total.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The rather obvious difference being that was a change to the status quo rather than keeping it.

In reply to Trevers:

Good old Boris, his only shot at getting any sort of power is to gamble on Brexit, but every time he speaks it really sounds like he doesn't believe one word of what he is saying.

In reply to John2:

You seem to be a bit confused. Did you read and understand that link?

In reply

Without funding there is no science. If you imagine that generous George from no. 11 is going to think that spending on science, let's say astronomy, is worth it, you are massively deluded.

In reply to John2:


Which says a lot more about the rationality of the US stock market than sensible valuations of the companies.

Facebook isn't even a real technology company, it is far more more of a media company than a technology company.

In reply to John2:

Stock market valuations aren't actual "value". They are just what investors think the stocks may be worth in the future. And the vast majority of internet startups are not actually producing anything, just pushing real wealth about.

Didn't we learn that in the dot.com bubble? Apparently not.

Peter
--

In reply to John2:


I'm not understanding this. Isn't 77.7 billion the total UK contribution to the EU for the period. Of which 5.4 billion is the proportion that went into the EU research budget. And we got 8.8 billion back for research. So we are a net recipient in relation to the research budget alone.

Yes, we are a net contributor overall, but so are all the richer EU countries. I've no problem with that myself. We all benefit in the long term from the economic development of the poorer EU countries, just as the US benefitted from Marshall aid to European countries after the war. One, but not the only, reason is that the populations of those countries are then better placed to buy our goods.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

But the research component of our EU contribution is just a notional construct. The EU make a series of calculations to justify the amount money they wish to to extract from us each year, but that's just back of the envelope stuff. What really matters is our net position - how much we contribute in total minus the sums that we get back.

In supermarket parlance selling one thing very cheaply in order to attract us in and spend more on other items is called a loss leader.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

he might, the UK space sector is quite strong, relative to most other EU nations. It is a productive sector, it isn't all just EU funded research grants. Partly because the UK is an active participant in the European Space Agency and partly because it's quite good at building various high end satellite components, not because it's in the EU, also previous to this budding astronauts had to change nationality and fly with NASA as the UK wasn't an active partner.

In reply to John2:



I quite like the "loss leader" analogy. However, I'm surprised if the research component is just a notional construct. Surely the EU knows what percentage of its total budget it spends on scientific research. The UK contribution to the EU research budget is just that same percentage of the total UK contribution to the EU isn't it?

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

I'm a bit surprised anyone expects to be taken seriously when describing the size of EU member nation funding as "just back of the envelope stuff". It rather reduces the impact of any potentially valid points he may be making later.

In reply to Martin Hore:

And other countries receive more than their fair share of other budgets. It all evens out, but when all's said and done we are still one of the larger net contributors to the EU budget.

In reply to john arran:

It's not just the EU - look at the projections of the UK's Office for Budget Responsibility. Look, indeed, at our own dear George Osborne's prediction that leaving the EU would cost every family £4300 pre year. The one thing we know with absolute certainty is that this is not an accurate figure.

The OBR make use of very expensive envelopes, but that does not mean that their predictions are accurate.

In reply to John2:


Yes we have to accept that the figure could in fact be much higher

In reply to summo:

Do you *really believe* that this government would spend the sterling equivalent of 8bn euros on science every year? Dream on. Once that budget has gone, could a Labour government spend that amount without being branded fiscally incompetent wastrels?

In reply to John2:


For a start, what makes you think these actions are 'Canute-like'? The EU has more than enough power to compel such companies to change their actions if they need to.

More importantly, why would you object to such investigations? Google these days basically defines what the internet is - if your site doesn't appear in the Google results you might as well switch your servers off. You don't think such power needs some governmental oversight?

In reply to BarrySW19:

The major countries of the EU, France in particular, have a long history of protectionism. They should be attempting to compete with the American tech companies, not to legislate against them.

In reply to John2:


This is a particularly bad measure of either the volume of innovation or its significance. Seeing as you reference the likes of Microsoft, as an example in the mid 90s they filed tens of thousands of patents for which their was in fact prior art and patents pending from rivals.

The net effect is it (a litigious rather than inventive attempt to grip a market which is rife in the US) stifles innovation by making it very hard for the smaller specialised companies, which are sometimes more technically on the ball, to compete because they can't afford the legal resources nor the time frames involved.

Microsoft, in part, would probably acknowledge that its monopoly/oligopoly approach of the mid 90s and throwing patents together for stuff they might of invented or straight up nicked was harmful towards innovation and became aware it would eventually bite them. In fact, following on from the early anti trust cases they started to take a less adversarial approach to staying above competitors and in fact started to prop up some competitors to stave of future actions. (e.g. https://redmondmag.com/articles/1999/06/08/microsoft-inprise-in-unlikely-de... Many other tech companies never learned this lesson and are happy to chance it and intimidate start ups out of markets.

In reply to John2:

Why? Different countries tend to be good at different things. The Americans are good at tech, the British lead the world in financial services (unless we decide to destroy that by leaving the EU), the Germans are leaders in high-tech manufacturing, the French make some nice cheese.

Let government create a level playing field by preventing monopoly abuse, and otherwise leave the private sector to get on with it.

In reply to Andy Hardy:



The government directly funds astronomy in the UK. That only link that money has to the EU is that some of it goes to international project consortiums with the word "Europe" in the title, that are not themselves EU projects.

The RCUK budget is about £3bn a year and directly funds all sorts of science in the UK. I'm cynical that it would rise sufficiently to balance the additional money the UK currently spends on itself via the EU however.

In reply to BarrySW19:
My very favourite cheese is Roquefort. By my back of an envelope calculation, the French would need to produce 4,650,000,000 kilos of it to equal Apple's 2015 worldwide revenue.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


No, you said No.11 might stop funding space stuff, I pointed out the EU doesn't, so No.11 doesn't need to step in and take it's place.

8bn in science; many of these are joint global ventures, where many are current projects held in collaboration with non euro countries, why should this change too? Countries in EEA and EFTA seem to still gain science funding for big projects, half of the hadron collider lies outside the EU and that country has opted out of EU migration. Haven't read about it being forced to close down yet?

Being out of the EU might lift the barriers on employing more high calibre folk from beyond the EU, which the government is currently reducing in a desire to hold immigrant figures down, simply because it can't control the EU inward migration.

In reply to John2:


that's probably how much the French farmers tell the EU they are producing, when claiming for their farming allowances though.

In reply to summo:


Switzerland is in the Schengen zone. And what EU migration has to do with science funding is not at all clear to me.

Being in the EU does not stop the UK from importing talent. Have a look at the number of non EU students are at any university.

In reply to BarrySW19:

In the Uk that this the case. In other countrys google is not as critical.....even in the States people use other search engines more. The dominace is here. I looked at the stats a bit ago, it was a bit of an eyeopener.You need to know this sort of stuff when you internationalise your company website, so you have to look at which search engines people use in other countrys.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Yes, I believe that. The current government spend on UK science research is about £5.8 billion a year. The funding from the EU is about £800 million a year.

(Note that the above 8bn Euro figure is from 2007 to 2013, not per year.)

And yes, the current government can be and are persuaded by the economic case for investment in science. If we came out of the EU, might we expect the government to continue that £800 million a year (which of course comes from the British taxpayer anyhow)? Yes, there's a good chance of it.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


I guess you've missed a lot of news stories on the increasing difficulties of bringing paying non EU students over to study here. Then they go home; it's much harder for non EU nationals to work here than to pay to study here. It's the later where "importing talent" applies. Students are importing cash and exporting knowledge/education. Different things.

In reply to wintertree:

But *non EU* immigration is *already* under the control of the UK government. So it's our very own sovereign government that's making it difficult, not those pesky foreigners in Brussels.

In reply to John2:

Horizon 2020 is not a project or collaboration in the way that CERN, ESO, ESA and ITER are.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Nope, the swiss had a vote not to accept EU migration policy. They were blocked from various international projects, then found a solution by paying for placements of students directly.


http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33101336 it happens all the time, there are non EU quotas, regardless of criteria or field of work.

non EU students are paying for their places at the Uni, it is part of the Uni's income, these aren't the same a person applying for work visa.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


but that is the point, the 'out' campaign would rather increase Visas for skilled high end people from anywhere in the world, reduce the number of skilled and unskilled EU migrant workers.

As the stands the employment market is skewed toward EU workers.

In reply to summo:

And what is stopping the UK govt from upping the quotas for skilled high end people from outside the EU right now?

In reply to Andy Hardy:


But that will not be the case in the future if we stay IN.

The millions of migrants and their subsequent families will become EU citizens and then be free to travel anywhere in the EU. We may not be in the Schengen area right now, but I would worry that a future Labour government will sign us up to it if we stay in.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


the fact that many public services are overwhelmed already, general public opinion, lack of housing, 2 million unemployed UK residents...

In reply to cragtaff:


That's a completely irrational concern; there is no suggestion of that happening.

In reply to cragtaff:


IS/ terrorism and migration from ME/North African has finished the Schengen for the next few decades anyway. But, that could be how long it takes before labour is electable again.

In reply to summo:


But not the EU.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


No, not the EU. But the level of immigration from existing EU member states *is* a concern to many. That can't be denied, and will sway votes in the EU referendum - whether you or I like it or not.

That provides a challenging background against which to increase levels of immigration from elsewhere.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


but the UK isn't allowed to block EU migration, even if it allowed 10 million common wealth workers to come here, it can't say or vet who comes from the EU, it doesn't have control. My point is the unemployment market is completely skewed and not in the best interests of the UK.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I really don't think that would happen. The UK has different strategic aims to the EU.

In reply to summo:


Given that immigration has proved to bring a net financial benefit to the UK do you not think it may be partly or wholly the fault of the UK government if they've failed to reinvest some or all of that extra cash to meet the predictable extra public service costs?

Or is it that they're pocketing the spoils and blaming the self same immigrants who are making them money?

Seems to me like Cameron is now frantically trying to climb out of the hole he's been busy digging for years.

In reply to john arran:

To be fair, public service planning has to be performed 10 or 20 years in advance. So this isn't party political.