CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Well I did answer your question - you just don't seem to appreciate the answer you recieved for some reason. As for my opinions being "empty headed" the forum will note that you have singularly failed to address ANY of the (evidenced based) points re immigration that I have raised in posts 1851 & 1867. Until I see something approaching a meaningful reply then I feel that others on here may safely assume that you have nothing much to offer on this subject beyond yet more of the tiresome brand of xenophobia and ignorance that you seem to specialise in.

What do you think you have "proved" ?

The record shows that I answered your little question in my own way - quite comprehensively methinks. If you don't approve of my reply then I guess you with just have to live with the disappointment - I know I can.

But you agree that all negotiations involve a degree of 'give and take' and that this process is unlikley to be another "simple" matter ?

You asked me - a layman - to provide a arbetery number as to what I would consider to be a satisfactory level of future immigration. I doubt somehow most would consider that to be a "simple point" - although I do concede you do come across on here as being more that a little simple at times.

So we are in effect 'knocking on their door' asking if we could please have free access to their markets and you still feel that the balance of power in this relationship lays with us?

I can't be the only person on here to experience a warm glow of nostelga whenever I see you return to this oh so familiar "no one answers my questions" gag of yours.

I put it to you that should we leave then the voters of remaining EU nations are likley to expect their leaders to extract whatever competitive advantage from the new situation that they can - the EU is essentially a trading bloc not a charity afterall. Were the situation reversed, then that is exactly what I would expect our leaders to do. You do understand I take it that the UK is the second largest (net) contributer to EU funds after Germany - indeed the leave campaign seldom tire of reminding everyone of that fact. So, if we left then others presumably would have to contribute much more in order to maintain current EU expenditure programmes - hardly a receipe for our post Bretex popularity I would have thought. Other nations have long cast envious eyes at the financial power and influence the City of London still maintains in the world - it is perhaps naive not to expect Germany or France to seek to address that issue.

Maybe, maybe not - it's hard to say. In my experience 'divorces' seldom end up with in both parties being perfectly happy with the outcome and it is perhaps dangerous to underestimate the level of ill-will a potential UK exit may lead to. For example, if we voted to leave their club then why would French or German voters be so very keen to ensure that our vital financial services sector continued to have unrestricted access to EU financial markets?

Because Turkey already has a form of associate (or "Candidate") membership status with the EU that allows it some access. Our coming referendum is of course a straight "in/out" choice - any post UK exit trading arrangement with the EU is a matter of mere speculation that Michael Grove seeks to gloss over.

The UK could indeed introduce immigration controls if we withdrew from the EU - but only at the probable cost of abandoning our Single Market access. So you can ask yourself then what is more important to you - reducing immigration or reducing our national prosperity?

True to form your rampant xenophobia shines through every post. I have no intention whatsoever of congering up some arbetery number out of thin air for you as (a) I don't 'dance' to your tune shipmate, and (d) the nessisary level of future immigration depends upon the future labour requirements of our economy - which is a obviously a matter of some speculation. However, data from the Office of National Statistics* show that between May 2010 and January 2015 the UK economy created some 1.8 million new jobs - that is about 1000 jobs every single day - while unemployment has reduced to around 5% of the available workforce. It seems reasonable to speculate that a large proportion of that unemployed 5% are probably either those who find themselves temporarily 'between jobs' or people who are effectivly unemployable for one reason or another. So the situation is that we are simultaneously rapidly creating new jobs AND approaching something like full employment of the available workforce. Therefore, immigration is not so much a case of our ALLOWING too many foreigners in who want nothing more than to sit on their arses all day and enjoy the many benifits of the welfare state - only dedicated 'Daily Mail' types could belive such tripe - but rather our economy is in fact DRAWING people in from other areas of the world where there is a surplus of suitable labour in order to fulfil its workforce requirements. That is how markets work, a case of 'supply and demand' you might say. Clearly none of the above will satisfy you as fundamentaly you intensely dislike having to walk the streets with people who do not happen to exhibit the same culture/language/skin colour as you do. I can only surgest you get used to it because this is the 'way of the world' in the 21st century - whether you like it or not. *http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/march-2015/statistical-bulletin.html

If there was no work for them then they would not come here would they? So if we get to the stage when significant numbers of non British citizens are over here not earning a honest living for themselves then that would be too many. But even you should be inteligent enough to see that if that situation came about then many of them would probably leave anyway. Our economy exists - and is indeed flourishing - within a huge single market. The rules of that vast single market entail the free movement of goods, services and people. If you want to give all that up then any serious economist will tell you that we are all going to face a poorer future.

You don't seem to understand that the large majority of immigrants actualy find emplyment in our economy that (very often) British citizens are reluctant to undertake for the pay on offer. For example, without immigration how are our farmers supposed to gather in their crops when few Brits nowadays want that type of low paid and often back-breaking work? Without immigration how are our care homes to find enough staff to look after us as we age? I'm not sure that I fancy doing that type of work - do you? This issue is not as simple as you think it is.

Methinks I will briefly interupt the usual display of rank ignorance and xenophobia we so often see on here with a few choice facts. Satistics for the year ending Sept 2015 show beyond any reasonable dispute that more people arrive here from OUTSIDE of the EU than from within: http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics So the UK could, in theory anyway, more than HALF net immigration (if it wanted to) without changing its current EU membership status one single iota. In reality of course the vast majority of immigrants, from wherever they arrive, soon find gainful employment here and therefore contribute to both our economy and their often impoverished families back home. So that's a good thing then. Those on here attempting to highlight the future plight of our NHS, should net immigration continue to increase, might do well to remember that published data from The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) shows that some 11% of our total healthcare workforce are classified as "Non British". That percentage rises to 14% for professionaly qualified clinical staff, and a massive 26% for Doctors: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/26/nhs-foreign-nationals-immigration-health-service So if these (mostly young and healthy I guess) immigrants are supposed to represent some special unbearable burden on the NHS then the factual record shows that they are also a vital source of labour for this particular sector of the economy. Furthermore, had previous generations of immigration not been allowed/encouraged into the UK then it seems highly doubtful that this organisation could possibly cope with the many burdens placed on it - at least not without significant additional investment. Speaking for myself, whenever I require the services of a healthcare proffessonal I don't really care very much where the person tending to my needs comes from - indeed as long as they speak good English and know what they are doing I could hardly care less.

Ironically it was another famous/infamous Conservative politician - Margaret Thatcher no less - who was the driving force behind the EU "Single Market" concept (with all its incumbant free movement of goods/services/people provisions) and steered this measure through our Parliment in the crucial Single European Act of 1986. And yet now right wing Tories/kippers form the core of the 'Leave' campaign .... 'tis a funny old world we live in.

Romeu is certainly decent enough, but tends to lose possession too easily I think. Clasie looks rather lightweight to me and hasn't really made the kind of impact in the Premier League we were led to believe he would when signed. Okay, he might do that next season I suppose, but I can recall EXACTLY the same being said about Gaston time and time again on here and let's face it that particular 'bus' never did arrive did it? Perhaps the best way to objectivly evaluate how well players have really done in the game is too see how much interest other clubs show in pinching them from us - frankly I don't see the likes of MUFC or Liverpool etc beating down uncle Les's door this summer offering us huge amounts of cash for either Clasie or Romeu. Not so long ago - if you were careful - £5m or £8m would have got you a pretty special player. Nowadays it seems that kind of money is required to secure the services of average (if not journeyman) PL players. As fans we probably have to get used to that fact of football life and not expect too much from every 'next big thing' we sign.

Louis Theroux: "Drinking to Oblivion" - BBC 2 Sunday. A straighforward, but increadably moving, documentary this as Louis Theroux follows a small group of truely hard-core acholics in and out of South London's King's College Hospital. I should say here that I do struggle somewhat to really understand the problem of acholism as I seldom drink now and have never really managed to acquire much of a taste for alcohol. But any sense of isolation from the issue, or lack of empathy for the drinkers one may have felt was soon dispelled as the programme powerfully brought home the suffering of these poor people in no uncertain terms. Yes alcoholics are seemingly guilty of making some pretty bad lifestyle choices, but many of the heavy drinkers featured here are clearly worthwhile and decent Human Beings who have had a hard life and just can't cope anymore. There but for the 'Grace of God' go any of us perhaps ... At one stage Loius was hurridly recalled to the Casualty Dept when Joe - a young man he had been following through the detox process - suffered a relapse and turned up in the middle of a massive Vodka binge. I swear you would have needed a heart of stone not to feel for the lad. Then Louis had to watch on helplessly as Joe - in a drunken stupor - decided to walk out of Casualty before any emergency detox treatment could be arranged for him. It almost felt that we were watching this gentle and intelligent 32 year old walk out to face his death. On another occasion we saw a older man who's liver was so very damaged by years of excessive drinking that his body was retaining HUGE amounts of fluid around his torso. The sight of litres of this vile stuff being drained off was quite ghastly I assure you. When told that he might perhaps have only 3 months to live the gravity of his situation didn't really seem to hit home somehow. Theroux is I think a brilliant programme maker. He has a unique way of gently cutting to the heart of the matter when it comes to people - without ever being at all aggressive or openly judgmental - that is both wonderfully exposing and yet utterly humane all at the same time. Sadly I suspect that there may not be all that many 'happy endings' for at least some of the alcholics featured here, but at least the programme ended with the welcome sight of Joe looking much better and living back with his father in Brighton - God I hope he makes it.

The concluding (and feature length) episode of the BBC's intense police corruption drama 'Line of Duty' is due to be broadcast this coming Thursday - and by all accounts we are promised a absolute cracker. In last week's genuinly shocking instalment fans of the series witnessed DS "Dot" Cotton (Craig Parkinson) brutaly murder the disgraced DI Lindsey Denton (Keeley Hawes) as she sat beside him in his car - but crucialy only seconds after she had e-mailed a incriminating image on her mobile phone to the Met's 'AC12' anti-corruption unit. So the question is can the (DNA splattered) Cotton again manipulate his credulous bosses into blaming someone else, or at long last is time finally starting to catch up with this irredeemably 'bent' and murderous copper? I can hardly wait to find out ...

As to your first sentance the answer is 'yes' of course - what point are you trying to make? If Mervyn King is indeed as ardent a supporter of our EU exit as you claim then I take it you will have no problem providing some actual evidence to support this contention of yours.

There aren't any - but Messers Grove, Farage and Galloway assure us that a bright future awaites us out on our lonesome in this big world and that seems to be good enough for some on here ... oh and don't mention the Scots.

You really must try harder on here. Those currently holding high office probably do have a more relevant opinion than those long retired - they are afterall more in touch with the current situation are they not? Furthermore, if does not follow that because (for example) former leaders of the CBI supported our joining the Euro many years ago that means that the current leaders of British industry are wrong somehow to support the 'remain' campaign today. That argument is nonsensical. Yes one former Chancellor of the Exchequer (Nigel Lawson) does favour your side of the argument here - but he is in pretty exclusive 'club of one' in that regard is he not? As for your sense of disappointment with the agreement the PM achieved recently, I find it more than a little odd frankly that you seem to have forgotten that this nation is now formally free from any EU ambition for a 'ever closer union' - is that not a worthwhile achievement any kipper would approve of? In the final analysis international agreements are (most often) reached via a process of compromise and good will - you don't seem capable of comprehending this basic fact of real world grown-up politics. Very obviously the overwhelming consensus of expert opinion - be it economic, political, financial, or business - is that our leaving at this time would represent a significant risk to the future welfare of this nation and therefore the UK should retain its EU membership. We can methinks all see how very 'inconvient' this truth is to you, but twist and turn as you like that fact of the matter just cannot be ignored by anyone open minded enough to retain some reasonable interest in the actual argument here.

Well you tell me where is all this evidence and distinguised opinion supporting the 'leave' camp point of view is and I will happily consider it. While we awaite the delivery of that bombshell, put against the veritable mountain of evidence we can now see warning of the potentialy grave risks to our economy of the UK leaving the EU - be it from President Obama, the Govenor of the Bank of England, HM Treasury, the CBI etc - the 'leave' campaign has so far struggled to put together the slighest 'mole hill' of meaningful counter-argument. Indeed, it seems to me that the 'case' (if we dignify the kipper argument thus) for retreating from the EU is little more than a emotional and negative one - an appeal to the xenophobic and 'little englander' elements in our society. You are of course perfectly free to spend from now until Hell freezes over attempting to dismiss anything and everything that comes up in this debate that does not fit into your particular version of the truth. But understand this - the British people will (l hope) in time come to see through the inherent weakness of the argument you (and others) are so inelegantly espousing on here and realise that leaving the EU now would represent perhaps the greatest policy error this nation has undertaken since we willfully neglected to join with the founding of this organisation more than half a century ago.

What you choose to depict as some kind of "threat" might just as easily be seen as a warning. But you're another of those who are not very interested I think in hearing any opinion, or seeing any evidence, that does not happen to fit into your preconcieved view of the situation are you? I also take it that the President's argument that the US has purchased the right to comment on European affairs with blood of its young men in two world wars does not impress you much either. As for your being so very "sure" that you are more in touch with US opinion than a (two time) President of the United States is ... well that has at least amused me a little of a rather boring morning.

If our Boris want to position himself as Cameron's eventual successor, and that is what all this is really about of course, then suggesting that the President of the United States must be a secret anglophobe, based on nothing more than Obama's African heritage, does not strike me as being a particularly 'prime ministerial' (or for that matter very bright) thing to say. But I expect it will all be soon forgotten as people seem to buy his "oh what a funny old duffer I am" act and forgive him almost anything. Indeed, right now I'd risk a whole english pound on Boris becoming PM one day - he'd be a utter disaster of course but people seem to want something different from your traditional politician and he is certainly that.