BREXIT - or remain? Immigration.

I was unable to watch all of last evening's Newsnight programme on BBC television, but I managed to watch some, and have read a number of comments since.  It was, as is not uncommon at the present time, a disgrace.  The "I'm not sure what I identify as", allegedly comedian, Eddie Izzard appeared in the most bizarre outfit - looking, as others have pointed out, like Vera Duckworth from Coronation Street! However, it appeared that he was there for the prime purpose of interrupting, and shouting over, Nigel Farage, beside whom the "unbiased" (believe that if you will!) BBC had seated him/her/it.  Mr Dumbleby was, as usual, about as useful as the proverbial chocolate tea-pot as far as keeping order was concerned!

The major bone of contention between them was on the subject of immigration, and the way in which the UK being a member of the EU has effected it.  Nigel Farage claimed - and he is rarely, if ever, wrong in such claims (unlike Izzard, and most of the "Remain" politicians, he does his homework!) - that some 70% of the UK population want tighter controls on immigration.  So what are the relevant facts on that topic?

1. The EU is being flooded with immigrants - especially since Angela Merkel kindly opened the door to all and sundry!  Now please don't make the mistake, that Izzard and others make, of assuming that the Brexit supporters are totally opposed to any immigration at all.  What is demanded is controlled immigration, which is a totally different kettle of fish.

2. It is estimated that some 5,000 ( a conservative figure!) of those who have entered the EU since the Merkel invitation, are members of ISIS.  One does not require an IQ of 160+ to work out why they are taking advantage of this lovely "open doors" policy!

3. Members of other EU states are flooding the UK, claiming millions of pounds in benefits - and even having Child Benefit Allowance sent to their native countries with, as far as I am aware, not even an attempt to check as to whether, or not, those children even exist.

4. Immigrants from EU countries (yes, I know that non-EU immigrants are part of this problem as well, but that is a separate issue - although one that would also be able to be dealt with more easily if we were, once again, an independent sovereign nation) are already putting enormous pressure on public services: NHS; schools; social housing; transport; etc

5. If (or ought that to be "When"?) Turkey is offered visa-free travel within the EU as part of its move towards full membership, another 78 million potential immigrants who would have to be accepted under EU rules.  Even if a mere 1% were to travel, that is still approximately 780,000!  By the way, no-one expects that the percentage will be anything lie as low as 1%!

Those are just five immigration-related reasons to vote LEAVE on June 23rd.  There are, undoubtedly, others.  However, in my opinion, those five are more than sufficient!

This is equality?

I have never made any claim to be an economist!  Helping to manage our household finances is sufficient for me.  However, I sometimes wonder if it should not be a basic requirement for the high office of Chancellor of the Exchequer that (s)he be fully qualified in money management!

Yesterday's U.K. Budget announcement did contain some welcome news.  I am happy that the planned increase in fuel tax has been abandoned - although I would be even happier to see the price of diesel back below that of petrol (as it is in, as far as I can make out, the rest of Europe, if not the world!).  Saving 1p off a pint of beer isn't going to affect this teetotaller one iota - but I am sure that it made some others a little bit happier (and it did replace a planned 6p/pint increase!).

However, one announcement left me confused.  A couple who earn up to a combined total of £300,000 per year (yes, that is three hundred thousand!) will soon be entitled to as much as £1200/year to help with their nursery-care costs - to a maximum of £6,000.  Now, unless a working couple have the time, and stamina, to bring a child into the world every year for five consecutive years, no-one is going to be receiving that maximum.  However, if a couple are earning up to £150,000 each, surely they can afford to pay nursery costs without expecting me, as a pensioner, to subsidise them!

At the same time, families with one working parent earning more than £50,000 per year, will soon be losing their Child Benefit Allowance!

This new deal is, we are informed, in order to enable more mothers to go to work!  That raises some additional questions:
1.  Where, with unemployment at its current level, are most of them going to get a job?
2.  Is not the full-time care of children a 'job'?  Or is it only so if one is caring for other people's children as a "nice wee earner"!?
3.  Is not the best carer of children, in the vast majority of cases, their natural, biological, mother?

If this is Mr Osborne's idea of equality, then heaven help us all.  The present Coalition Government certainly won't!