La girAFFFFF a écrit :
>>
>>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=548628&in_page_id=1770
>
> Les versions diffèrent d'un journal à un autre apparemment.
NON au sein du même journal, quelques jours avant, l'article que vous
avez repiqué donne la version du parti travailliste férocement
pro-immigration.
>
> Ten years of record immigration to Britain has produced VIRTUALLY
Oui, cela pourrait être négatif.
> "Our overall conclusion is that the economic benefits of net
> immigration to the resident population are small and close to zero in
> the long run," the re****t will say.
Il faut lire le rap****t plutôt que des fuites.
> Foreign workers now make up 12.5 per cent of the labour force,
> compared with 7.4 per cent a decade ago. Critics say Labour lost
> control of the borders, issued too many work permits and should not
> have opened up the labour market to eastern Europe.
>
> However, ministers say that WITHOUT LARGE-SCALE IMMIGRATION THERE
> WOULD HAVE BEEN SLOWER ECONOMIC GROWTH.
Sans aucune preuve (sauf s'il veut dire croissance absolue ce qui est
fort possible même si la croissance par tête d'habitant diminue).
>
> A Whitehall paper produced for the committee said average output
> growth over the past five years was 2.7 per cent a year and migration
> contributed an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of this. The Government
> said this indicated a contribution of £6 billion - or £700,000 a day-
> from foreign workers.
>
> However, the committee's final re****t is expected to say the
> Government should have focused on the impact of immigration on GDP per
> head, not the economy as a whole.
Oui, le gouvernement oublie de compter les coûts supplémentaires, quel
heureux hasard !
>
> David Coleman, a professor of demography at Oxford University, said in
> his evidence to the committee that the Government had excluded costs
> from crime, security, the race relations process, health "tourism" and
> im****ted ailments such as TB.
Et voilà !
> Richard Pearson, a visiting professor at the University of Sus***'s
> Centre for Migration Research, said: "While migrants have clearly
> helped alleviate often long-standing skill shortages, they have also
> filled many low-skilled jobs, often at very low wages.
> Cela dit, un comité de la Chambre des Lords reste un comité partisan
> et n'a aucune valeur scientifique.
Mais bien sûr, plusieurs professeurs d'université, qu'est-ce qu'il vous
faut, et la chambre des Lords n'est pas partisane (pas de parti, ces
gens n'ont plus besoin d'être (ré)élus donc de suivre la ligne du parti).
|
