Ok, let's have a look. Get a brew and a digestive.

I didn't say they weren't net contributors, but I don't consider a small (and arguable) net contribution in fiscal terms good enough argument to perpetuate the idiocy of freedom of movement between hugely unequal countries. It's not immigration that creates the problems per se, it's the rate of arrivals. I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-mass, uncontrolled immigration. Just how long do you think a rough average net migration of 230,000 for the last 15 years can continue?

And let me be clear - I don't attribute this all to EU immigration, indeed non-EU immigration is more costly to the UK, however it's a significant factor and one that we can begin to fix via Brexit.

In reality their actual contribution is highly debatable. Immigration is estimated to raise GDP by around 0.5% per year, however as it also increases population by roughly the same rate any benefit is minimal. Even the pro-EU House of Lords found that immigration offers little-to-no economic benefit to the UK, although of course the immigrants themselves benefit. They also noted this reflected similar studies in other countries. Taking a number of studies in the round the benefit to the exchequer certainly appears negligible.

The Lords also estimated that every 100 non-EU working-age migrants are initially associated with 23 fewer native British people employed. But that's another story.

The fact is, immigration is contributing to our population growing at its fastest rate since the Industrial Revolution. 55% of the population increase between 91-16 was due to the direct contribution of net migration. We're a small, densely populated country with a severe housing crisis. Whether you think that's a problem right at this moment is irrelevant - you need to look 10, 20, 50, 100 years into the future to get an idea of how dire the situation will become unless measures are taken, or a massive house-building programme is implemented immediately which would inevitably see further swathes of green-belt land disappear. Up to 90% of new households in the UK each year are headed by someone of overseas origin. In London it's 100%. As most immigrants tend to move to cities, their impact there is more significant, squeezing demand and driving up prices and - bearing in mind most migrants rent - driving up rental costs.

Of course, an aging population (the rate of which will only increase as immigrants since 2000 reach old age) is a key factor, but so is immigration. Furthermore, as migrants tend to have bigger families, births to migrants and to their children will be an enormous factor in exponential population growth in the future. The numbers just pile up over and over.

The NHS absolutely feels pressure due to immigration. There were 745,000 new migrant GP registrations in 2015/16 alone. Please don't try to tell me these numbers aren't squeezing waiting times and demand, because they are, especially in high migrant areas. On a related note, the cost of overseas visitors and immigrants to the NHS is around £2 billion pa - for this reason the immigration health surcharge was introduced for non-EEA and temporary migrants, soon to increase to £400. The NHS is of course partly at fault here: for years they have failed miserably to recover the costs of treating EEA citizens. EEA countries have claimed up to £650m for treating UK citizens, while the NHS claims often much less than £70m. And yes I appreciate austerity is a factor, so it makes little sense to continue to allow such high numbers of potential patients.

Yes, yes, we know a significant proportion of NHS staff are of overseas origin. No-one is talking of removing their right to work, or indeed restricting the ability of qualified medical workers moving here where no British worker is available, so spare me the argument.

Schools are also absolutely under pressure due to an increase in the birth rate since 2000 following a slight slowdown in the 90s. New immigrant arrivals and higher birth rates to higher-fertility previous immigrants are the main factor: 78% of the increase in birth rate is down to immigrant births. How can you project school places if you have no idea how many children might arrive or be born in your area? You can't. I have first-hand experience of British children being unable to get into their local schools while immigrant children are given places. Most primary schools are now facing a shortfall of places due to rising demand as immigrant children reach school-age. It's happening whether you like it or not.

In addition, I recently saw a school proudly boasting that 40+ languages were spoken in their classrooms - why on earth is this a good thing? All it means is precious time and resources spent supporting non-English speaking children: £270m in 2016, to be precise. Not an inconsiderable cost.

I also saw an interesting programme prior to the referendum, which followed new immigrant arrivals. In one case, a young chap from Eastern Europe arrived and tried to claim housing and find work as a labourer. After some time homeless he was deported. Thwarted, he simply came back the next year unannounced with his wife and 4 children and was immediately given a house and benefits due to children being involved. This is far from an isolated case. No pressure on housing or indeed benefits, of course.

There is also pressure on the transport infrastructure. Our road network has little room to expand, especially in and around cities. Similarly our public transport networks. Most Impact Assessments on transport have never accounted for increases in the rate of population growth - they assume the UK population to be reasonably constant, or at least growing at 'natural', relatively slow rates. Again, how can anyone plan ahead when they can't forecast the actual numbers?

I could also talk about how rapid mass immigration on communities can be stressful and create friction, and I'd be interested to see which of you shouts 'Little Englander' or xenophobia or racism first. But let me ask you another question: why is it so important to you that immigrants are able to come here unfettered? Why is it less important to address the concerns of British citizens?

We all know Corbyn and his cronies are anti-UK, anti-white, anti-semite. Is that true for everyone on the left?

Whatever. The simple fact is, working-age populations (skilled and unskilled) from Eastern and Southern Europe are flooding in massive numbers to the UK, the French/German area and parts of Scandinavia, although the rate to the UK has been slowing for obvious reasons. Why anyone thinks this a good situation I really can't fathom. Even freaking Vince Cable agrees it's of little benefit to the UK.

Again, I don't attribute these pressures solely to EU immigrants. But they remain a hugely significant factor and as I've always said - it's a numbers game, nothing more.

TL;DR: bren2k's 'facts' are anything but.

Ok, let's have a look. Get a brew and a digestive.

I didn't say they weren't net contributors, but I don't consider a small (and arguable) net contribution in fiscal terms good enough argument to perpetuate the idiocy of freedom of movement between hugely unequal countries. It's not immigration that creates the problems per se, it's the rate of arrivals. I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti-mass, uncontrolled immigration. Just how long do you think a rough average net migration of 230,000 for the last 15 years can continue?

And let me be clear - I don't attribute this all to EU immigration, indeed non-EU immigration is more costly to the UK, however it's a significant factor and one that we can begin to fix via Brexit.

In reality their actual contribution is highly debatable. Immigration is estimated to raise GDP by around 0.5% per year, however as it also increases population by roughly the same rate any benefit is minimal. Even the pro-EU House of Lords found that immigration offers little-to-no economic benefit to the UK, although of course the immigrants themselves benefit. They also noted this reflected similar studies in other countries. Taking a number of studies in the round the benefit to the exchequer certainly appears negligible.

The Lords also estimated that every 100 non-EU working-age migrants are initially associated with 23 fewer native British people employed. But that's another story.

The fact is, immigration is contributing to our population growing at its fastest rate since the Industrial Revolution. 55% of the population increase between 91-16 was due to the direct contribution of net migration. We're a small, densely populated country with a severe housing crisis. Whether you think that's a problem right at this moment is irrelevant - you need to look 10, 20, 50, 100 years into the future to get an idea of how dire the situation will become unless measures are taken, or a massive house-building programme is implemented immediately which would inevitably see further swathes of green-belt land disappear. Up to 90% of new households in the UK each year are headed by someone of overseas origin. In London it's 100%. As most immigrants tend to move to cities, their impact there is more significant, squeezing demand and driving up prices and - bearing in mind most migrants rent - driving up rental costs.

Of course, an aging population (the rate of which will only increase as immigrants since 2000 reach old age) is a key factor, but so is immigration. Furthermore, as migrants tend to have bigger families, births to migrants and to their children will be an enormous factor in exponential population growth in the future. The numbers just pile up over and over.

The NHS absolutely feels pressure due to immigration. There were 745,000 new migrant GP registrations in 2015/16 alone. Please don't try to tell me these numbers aren't squeezing waiting times and demand, because they are, especially in high migrant areas. On a related note, the cost of overseas visitors and immigrants to the NHS is around £2 billion pa - for this reason the immigration health surcharge was introduced for non-EEA and temporary migrants, soon to increase to £400. The NHS is of course partly at fault here: for years they have failed miserably to recover the costs of treating EEA citizens. EEA countries have claimed up to £650m for treating UK citizens, while the NHS claims often much less than £70m. And yes I appreciate austerity is a factor, so it makes little sense to continue to allow such high numbers of potential patients.

Yes, yes, we know a significant proportion of NHS staff are of overseas origin. No-one is talking of removing their right to work, or indeed restricting the ability of qualified medical workers moving here where no British worker is available, so spare me the argument.

Schools are also absolutely under pressure due to an increase in the birth rate since 2000 following a slight slowdown in the 90s. New immigrant arrivals and higher birth rates to higher-fertility previous immigrants are the main factor: 78% of the increase in birth rate is down to immigrant births. How can you project school places if you have no idea how many children might arrive or be born in your area? You can't. I have first-hand experience of British children being unable to get into their local schools while immigrant children are given places. Most primary schools are now facing a shortfall of places due to rising demand as immigrant children reach school-age. It's happening whether you like it or not.

In addition, I recently saw a school proudly boasting that 40+ languages were spoken in their classrooms - why on earth is this a good thing? All it means is precious time and resources spent supporting non-English speaking children: £270m in 2016, to be precise. Not an inconsiderable cost.

I also saw an interesting programme prior to the referendum, which followed new immigrant arrivals. In one case, a young chap from Eastern Europe arrived and tried to claim housing and find work as a labourer. After some time homeless he was deported. Thwarted, he simply came back the next year unannounced with his wife and 4 children and was immediately given a house and benefits due to children being involved. This is far from an isolated case. No pressure on housing or indeed benefits, of course.

There is also pressure on the transport infrastructure. Our road network has little room to expand, especially in and around cities. Similarly our public transport networks. Most Impact Assessments on transport have never accounted for increases in the rate of population growth - they assume the UK population to be reasonably constant, or at least growing at 'natural', relatively slow rates. Again, how can anyone plan ahead when they can't forecast the actual numbers?

I could also talk about how rapid mass immigration on communities can be stressful and create friction, and I'd be interested to see which of you shouts 'Little Englander' or xenophobia or racism first. But let me ask you another question: why is it so important to you that immigrants are able to come here unfettered? Why is it less important to address the concerns of British citizens?

We all know Corbyn and his cronies are anti-UK, anti-white, anti-semite. Is that true for everyone on the left?

Whatever. The simple fact is, working-age populations (skilled and unskilled) from Eastern and Southern Europe are flooding in massive numbers to the UK, the French/German area and parts of Scandinavia, although the rate to the UK has been slowing for obvious reasons. Why anyone thinks this a good situation I really can't fathom. Even freaking Vince Cable agrees it's of little benefit to the UK.

Again, I don't attribute these pressures solely to EU immigrants. But they remain a hugely significant factor and as I've always said - it's a numbers game, nothing more.

TL;DR: bren2k's 'facts' are anything but.