Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
A UCL study? **** off!

The view is based on a rather old fashioned definition of the volume of working population required to support our retirees. You know, the old ****s that are coining it in now and voted to get rid of the foreigners that were supporting them.

Just out of interest, how is that net cost calculated? Does it include overseas students?
You can't have it both ways. That same UCL study was shamelessly spun by pro-immigration types like yourself to pretend that immigration offered a net economic benefit, by looking solely at high-value EU migrants and ignoring the dregs of the third world your chums mysteriously decided to admit. In fact, needless to say, those people cost us a fūcking fortune (not to mention the higher incidence of general crime, rape, acid attacks, refusal to integrate and terrorism they bring with them, of course.

Still... 'diversity' - Yay!

Oh, and by the way, you'll notice that most of southern Europe is awash with unemployed youngsters who could just as easily have been encouraged to migrate here if we needed workers. Instead, Labour decided it would be better to massively increase the numbers of non-European, non-Christian non-white people who have - inevitably - brought with them a host of other problems. Because what's 'diversity' without more brown people, eh?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...20bn-ucl-study