Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your last paragraph nails it. We have an ageing population which means we need to tax working people more or increase immigration to fund the pensions, health and care needs of this increasingly unwell cohort of people. We also need people to deliver this. In the last few years we have seen strikes not only from the usual suspects but from NHS workers who have never gone on strike before. Immigration has trebled since the Brexit vote and with 40k of the 740k being 'illegal' you have to be honest with the population that 700k is legal and needed. They won't as it's a bogeyman to people to point to and say they are getting tough on the smaller number while hoping people think it's the bigger number. You may as well get tough with the tides for all the use it will do. If they wanted to bring down immigration they could fund adult education, children's education, and the NHS to enable people to get to work and re-train. But they don't. However, there are 1.6 million people on unemployment benefit. If they all could somehow retrain in exactly the industries and jobs we needed them to tomorrow then we could stop this current level of immigration for 2 and a bit years to get to zero unemployment. Then what? This conservative party is banging on about immigration as it has nothing to show for 13 years of government save Gay Marriage. They are out of ideas and trying to shore up their base who are going to reform to try and avoid getting under 100 seats. All western counties need immigrants. If you don't agree then I'm sorry but you are into the 'alternative facts' catagory of person. The money and people to provide the care for the old isn't there otherwise. " We need university educated people for the majority of of healthcare jobs - nurses, doctors, physics and so on. In-house training for support workers and care staff. The govt isn't paying high enough wages to tempt people into these positions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it's a complex topic and begs lots of political, economic and social questions. Legal and illegal immigration are two separate matters. To me mind, anything illegal should be stopped, no questions. As for legal migration, we have to ask why there is constant need to 'top-up' our population. Why won't Brits fill job vacancies in the NHS, care homes, warehouses, horticulture that are low-skill, low-wage? Many of the jobs are actually pretty well paid, Doctors, Nurses ..... yet we have to lure them here to keep our Health Service functioning. Something very wrong." Nurses are pretty well paid? Are you sure about that? They are on less than teachers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with the legal and illegal direction, illegal should be stopped. What I have found to be a very complex position is the skilled worker visa uplift for people to qualify they need to earn a minimum of £38700 per annum. It is either going to open the doors to more vacancies being filled within the country or a shortage of skilled workers such as junior doctors. I’m rather puzzled at this decision " Well that's fucked up our chances of getting more nurses then. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it's a complex topic and begs lots of political, economic and social questions. Legal and illegal immigration are two separate matters. To me mind, anything illegal should be stopped, no questions. As for legal migration, we have to ask why there is constant need to 'top-up' our population. Why won't Brits fill job vacancies in the NHS, care homes, warehouses, horticulture that are low-skill, low-wage? Many of the jobs are actually pretty well paid, Doctors, Nurses ..... yet we have to lure them here to keep our Health Service functioning. Something very wrong. Nurses are pretty well paid? Are you sure about that? They are on less than teachers." And? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with the legal and illegal direction, illegal should be stopped. What I have found to be a very complex position is the skilled worker visa uplift for people to qualify they need to earn a minimum of £38700 per annum. It is either going to open the doors to more vacancies being filled within the country or a shortage of skilled workers such as junior doctors. I’m rather puzzled at this decision " I agree the illegal side needs to be stopped or at least reduced significantly. I'm also puzzled about the recent raise in minimum income though I think it is to stop those coming in from undercutting those here. I think the points system works well enough though maybe the wages need looking at. Training more people here needs more attention so we don't need to strip other countries of their tallest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it's a complex topic and begs lots of political, economic and social questions. Legal and illegal immigration are two separate matters. To me mind, anything illegal should be stopped, no questions. As for legal migration, we have to ask why there is constant need to 'top-up' our population. Why won't Brits fill job vacancies in the NHS, care homes, warehouses, horticulture that are low-skill, low-wage? Many of the jobs are actually pretty well paid, Doctors, Nurses ..... yet we have to lure them here to keep our Health Service functioning. Something very wrong. Nurses are pretty well paid? Are you sure about that? They are on less than teachers. And?" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-staff-resign-record-b2261689.html | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, it's a complex topic and begs lots of political, economic and social questions. Legal and illegal immigration are two separate matters. To me mind, anything illegal should be stopped, no questions. As for legal migration, we have to ask why there is constant need to 'top-up' our population. Why won't Brits fill job vacancies in the NHS, care homes, warehouses, horticulture that are low-skill, low-wage? Many of the jobs are actually pretty well paid, Doctors, Nurses ..... yet we have to lure them here to keep our Health Service functioning. Something very wrong. Nurses are pretty well paid? Are you sure about that? They are on less than teachers. And?" That answers my question how? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with the legal and illegal direction, illegal should be stopped. What I have found to be a very complex position is the skilled worker visa uplift for people to qualify they need to earn a minimum of £38700 per annum. It is either going to open the doors to more vacancies being filled within the country or a shortage of skilled workers such as junior doctors. I’m rather puzzled at this decision I agree the illegal side needs to be stopped or at least reduced significantly. I'm also puzzled about the recent raise in minimum income though I think it is to stop those coming in from undercutting those here. I think the points system works well enough though maybe the wages need looking at. Training more people here needs more attention so we don't need to strip other countries of their tallest." Talent? Isn't predictive text shitty  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for legal migration, we have to ask why there is constant need to 'top-up' our population." Because the birth rate in the UK is around 1.6 per woman. That means that we aren't producing enough children to replace all the people that retire. Instead we have to import fresh bodies to keep the economy going. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The difficulty in stopping 'illegal' migration is that there is no 'legal' way to claim asylum unless you are from Ukraine or Hong Kong as this government has shut down other legal routes to apply from abroad." I keep seeing this claim, and I keep asking "what were these legal routes that the government has shut down?". No one has yet given me an answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I have found to be a very complex position is the skilled worker visa uplift for people to qualify they need to earn a minimum of £38700 per annum. It is either going to open the doors to more vacancies being filled within the country or a shortage of skilled workers such as junior doctors. I’m rather puzzled at this decision" "Well that's fucked up our chances of getting more nurses then." There's an exemption for workers in the health and care sectors. The new high salary level won't apply to nurses or junior doctors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with the legal and illegal direction, illegal should be stopped. What I have found to be a very complex position is the skilled worker visa uplift for people to qualify they need to earn a minimum of £38700 per annum. It is either going to open the doors to more vacancies being filled within the country or a shortage of skilled workers such as junior doctors. I’m rather puzzled at this decision I agree the illegal side needs to be stopped or at least reduced significantly. I'm also puzzled about the recent raise in minimum income though I think it is to stop those coming in from undercutting those here. I think the points system works well enough though maybe the wages need looking at. Training more people here needs more attention so we don't need to strip other countries of their tallest. Talent? Isn't predictive text shitty "Ooops yep predictive text caught me out. Or have I stumbled upon the next criteria to come here. Maybe they will announce a minimum height requirement  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What I have found to be a very complex position is the skilled worker visa uplift for people to qualify they need to earn a minimum of £38700 per annum. It is either going to open the doors to more vacancies being filled within the country or a shortage of skilled workers such as junior doctors. I’m rather puzzled at this decision Well that's fucked up our chances of getting more nurses then. There's an exemption for workers in the health and care sectors. The new high salary level won't apply to nurses or junior doctors." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As for legal migration, we have to ask why there is constant need to 'top-up' our population. Because the birth rate in the UK is around 1.6 per woman. That means that we aren't producing enough children to replace all the people that retire. Instead we have to import fresh bodies to keep the economy going." I overdid my quota then  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigration has lots of issues which I guess you are not asking about. Legal immigration would be fine if not for the housing crisis. When you have such a huge housing crisis, it you say that the country had a net immigration of 1.2M people in just 2 years, people who live here will be obviously worried. The other problem is with companies undercutting wages using immigrants for work." Skilled Worker and Health and Care Worker visas accounting for 63% of work grants. That snippet comes from the .gov site. I assume employers at govt behest are going to other countries to purloin care and healthcare staff. I know this for a fact re the NHS. But now the govt is acting all tough to get the number down... You just couldn't make it up! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigration has lots of issues which I guess you are not asking about. Legal immigration would be fine if not for the housing crisis. When you have such a huge housing crisis, it you say that the country had a net immigration of 1.2M people in just 2 years, people who live here will be obviously worried. The other problem is with companies undercutting wages using immigrants for work. Skilled Worker and Health and Care Worker visas accounting for 63% of work grants. That snippet comes from the .gov site. I assume employers at govt behest are going to other countries to purloin care and healthcare staff. I know this for a fact re the NHS. But now the govt is acting all tough to get the number down... You just couldn't make it up!" Of course the government knew this. It's funny when Boris, Sunak and Braverman point fingers at each other when they all clearly knew what was going on and were all responsible for it in one way or another. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigration has lots of issues which I guess you are not asking about. Legal immigration would be fine if not for the housing crisis. When you have such a huge housing crisis, it you say that the country had a net immigration of 1.2M people in just 2 years, people who live here will be obviously worried. The other problem is with companies undercutting wages using immigrants for work." It's part of our governments from 2010, who have left the country in chaos, following austerity measures, lack of investment, insufficient planning and public services management, amongst their ineptitude. Meanwhile, they use smoke and mirrors, to deflect from their results | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The difficulty in stopping 'illegal' migration is that there is no 'legal' way to claim asylum unless you are from Ukraine or Hong Kong as this government has shut down other legal routes to apply from abroad. I keep seeing this claim, and I keep asking "what were these legal routes that the government has shut down?". No one has yet given me an answer." https://www.amnesty.org.uk/resources/truth-about-safe-and-legal-routes It is now the law that you need to be in the UK to claim asylum with no legal route to get into the UK. While it used to be policy, any Lawyer worth their salt would say 'this is illegal and so my client gets asylum'. Then they get asylum. I'm sure the policy was there to throw some red meat knowing full well in practice it would not matter. Like the government telling police forces to treat burglary seriously and visit every report. One line from the chief constable that they were investigating a more serious crime and that's the end of that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The difficulty in stopping 'illegal' migration is that there is no 'legal' way to claim asylum unless you are from Ukraine or Hong Kong as this government has shut down other legal routes to apply from abroad. I keep seeing this claim, and I keep asking "what were these legal routes that the government has shut down?". No one has yet given me an answer. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/resources/truth-about-safe-and-legal-routes It is now the law that you need to be in the UK to claim asylum with no legal route to get into the UK. While it used to be policy, any Lawyer worth their salt would say 'this is illegal and so my client gets asylum'. Then they get asylum. I'm sure the policy was there to throw some red meat knowing full well in practice it would not matter. Like the government telling police forces to treat burglary seriously and visit every report. One line from the chief constable that they were investigating a more serious crime and that's the end of that. " Was you answering what safe routes have been closed down? The link doesn’t open a specific page for me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The difficulty in stopping 'illegal' migration is that there is no 'legal' way to claim asylum unless you are from Ukraine or Hong Kong as this government has shut down other legal routes to apply from abroad." "I keep seeing this claim, and I keep asking "what were these legal routes that the government has shut down?". No one has yet given me an answer." "https://www.amnesty.org.uk/resources/truth-about-safe-and-legal-routes" That link explains what a safe and legal route is. It doesn't give any details about safe and legal routes that used to exist, but have now been closed down. The UK is no different to the rest of the world here. No country allows people to apply from outside their borders. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Illegal immigration has lots of issues which I guess you are not asking about. Legal immigration would be fine if not for the housing crisis. When you have such a huge housing crisis, it you say that the country had a net immigration of 1.2M people in just 2 years, people who live here will be obviously worried. The other problem is with companies undercutting wages using immigrants for work. It's part of our governments from 2010, who have left the country in chaos, following austerity measures, lack of investment, insufficient planning and public services management, amongst their ineptitude. Meanwhile, they use smoke and mirrors, to deflect from their results " https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7671/#:~:text=levels%20of%20homelessness.-,Trends%20in%20housing%20supply,new%20homes%20in%202019%2F20. House building reached its lowest in 2010. After that, it has been increasing. I don't think any country of this size can take in 1.2 million people without facing stress on its infrastructure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with the legal and illegal direction, illegal should be stopped. What I have found to be a very complex position is the skilled worker visa uplift for people to qualify they need to earn a minimum of £38700 per annum. It is either going to open the doors to more vacancies being filled within the country or a shortage of skilled workers such as junior doctors. I’m rather puzzled at this decision " Can you clarify the sum £38,700. I thought it was much lower £26,200. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The difficulty in stopping 'illegal' migration is that there is no 'legal' way to claim asylum unless you are from Ukraine or Hong Kong as this government has shut down other legal routes to apply from abroad. I keep seeing this claim, and I keep asking "what were these legal routes that the government has shut down?". No one has yet given me an answer. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/resources/truth-about-safe-and-legal-routes That link explains what a safe and legal route is. It doesn't give any details about safe and legal routes that used to exist, but have now been closed down. The UK is no different to the rest of the world here. No country allows people to apply from outside their borders." The Rwanda seems to have a system set up! The link and my explanation do say there used to be other ways but these have now been shut down. Codifying in law a policy that was a wink and a nod to stop people using it. We took Syrian refugees but now we don't. We used to take Iraqi refugees but now we don't. Something changed. The single biggest change is that you have to be in the UK to claim asylum, but if you get into the UK without being here legally then your asylum case is automatically rejected, if you have been smuggled here without your consent and you want to claim as a victim of human trafficking or modern sl8very that is now banned as you were here illegally. If you want to get to the UK to claim asylum you will be rejected at the border so can't claim as you are not able to get onto UK soil. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your last paragraph nails it. We have an ageing population which means we need to tax working people more or increase immigration to fund the pensions, health and care needs of this increasingly unwell cohort of people. We also need people to deliver this. In the last few years we have seen strikes not only from the usual suspects but from NHS workers who have never gone on strike before. Immigration has trebled since the Brexit vote and with 40k of the 740k being 'illegal' you have to be honest with the population that 700k is legal and needed. They won't as it's a bogeyman to people to point to and say they are getting tough on the smaller number while hoping people think it's the bigger number. You may as well get tough with the tides for all the use it will do. If they wanted to bring down immigration they could fund adult education, children's education, and the NHS to enable people to get to work and re-train. But they don't. However, there are 1.6 million people on unemployment benefit. If they all could somehow retrain in exactly the industries and jobs we needed them to tomorrow then we could stop this current level of immigration for 2 and a bit years to get to zero unemployment. Then what? This conservative party is banging on about immigration as it has nothing to show for 13 years of government save Gay Marriage. They are out of ideas and trying to shore up their base who are going to reform to try and avoid getting under 100 seats. All western counties need immigrants. If you don't agree then I'm sorry but you are into the 'alternative facts' catagory of person. The money and people to provide the care for the old isn't there otherwise. " I think attitudes towards immigration are starting to change. A few years ago I didn't see it as an issue (I voted Remain in the referendum for context) However, 700k is extremely high and now can deny that puts a lot of pressure with regards to housing etc. Given how broken the housing market is in this country, I don't think you can just dismiss immigration concerns and figures anymore as right wing racists who hate all foreigners | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agree with the legal and illegal direction, illegal should be stopped. What I have found to be a very complex position is the skilled worker visa uplift for people to qualify they need to earn a minimum of £38700 per annum. It is either going to open the doors to more vacancies being filled within the country or a shortage of skilled workers such as junior doctors. I’m rather puzzled at this decision Can you clarify the sum £38,700. I thought it was much lower £26,200." The lowest limit for earnings on a skilled visa has been hiked up to £38700. This is going to impact those already here on skilled visas on the much lower rates allowed prior to the decision to uplift, and it is also going to cause some issues I would thought with certain jobs in medical positions that currently offer salaries under that limit. I usually get a feel for things going one way or another, but this I'm struggling with! On one hand it feels like it could be a good thing if skilled workers get an uplift, on the other hand I can see shortages in people when the salaries do not increase.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The lowest limit for earnings on a skilled visa has been hiked up to £38700." Those already here will already have a visa, and will not be affected by the change in limit. "This is going to impact those already here on skilled visas on the much lower rates allowed prior to the decision to uplift, and it is also going to cause some issues I would thought with certain jobs in medical positions that currently offer salaries under that limit." There is a special exemption for medical and health care workers, so it won't affect them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The lowest limit for earnings on a skilled visa has been hiked up to £38700. Those already here will already have a visa, and will not be affected by the change in limit. This is going to impact those already here on skilled visas on the much lower rates allowed prior to the decision to uplift, and it is also going to cause some issues I would thought with certain jobs in medical positions that currently offer salaries under that limit. There is a special exemption for medical and health care workers, so it won't affect them." I didn't know that, probably why I was struggling to get to grips with this. 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The difficulty in stopping 'illegal' migration is that there is no 'legal' way to claim asylum unless you are from Ukraine or Hong Kong as this government has shut down other legal routes to apply from abroad." "I keep seeing this claim, and I keep asking "what were these legal routes that the government has shut down?". No one has yet given me an answer." "https://www.amnesty.org.uk/resources/truth-about-safe-and-legal-routes" "That link explains what a safe and legal route is. It doesn't give any details about safe and legal routes that used to exist, but have now been closed down. The UK is no different to the rest of the world here. No country allows people to apply from outside their borders." "The link and my explanation do say there used to be other ways but these have now been shut down." The link does not say that. There is nothing on that page that mentions schemes that have been closed. "We took Syrian refugees but now we don't." The Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme was a humanitarian aid scheme set up in 2014. It took Syrians that had already applied for asylum in another country, and brought them over here. It was not a method of applying for asylum. It was also limited to 20,000 people right from the beginning. "We used to take Iraqi refugees but now we don't. Something changed." The scheme set up for Iraqis was limited to 650 people that were in danger due to their work for the UK Army, or the UK Foreign Office. The UK has never allowed general applications to be made from outside its borders. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your last paragraph nails it. We have an ageing population which means we need to tax working people more or increase immigration to fund the pensions, health and care needs of this increasingly unwell cohort of people. We also need people to deliver this. In the last few years we have seen strikes not only from the usual suspects but from NHS workers who have never gone on strike before. Immigration has trebled since the Brexit vote and with 40k of the 740k being 'illegal' you have to be honest with the population that 700k is legal and needed. They won't as it's a bogeyman to people to point to and say they are getting tough on the smaller number while hoping people think it's the bigger number. You may as well get tough with the tides for all the use it will do. If they wanted to bring down immigration they could fund adult education, children's education, and the NHS to enable people to get to work and re-train. But they don't. However, there are 1.6 million people on unemployment benefit. If they all could somehow retrain in exactly the industries and jobs we needed them to tomorrow then we could stop this current level of immigration for 2 and a bit years to get to zero unemployment. Then what? This conservative party is banging on about immigration as it has nothing to show for 13 years of government save Gay Marriage. They are out of ideas and trying to shore up their base who are going to reform to try and avoid getting under 100 seats. All western counties need immigrants. If you don't agree then I'm sorry but you are into the 'alternative facts' catagory of person. The money and people to provide the care for the old isn't there otherwise. I think attitudes towards immigration are starting to change. A few years ago I didn't see it as an issue (I voted Remain in the referendum for context) However, 700k is extremely high and now can deny that puts a lot of pressure with regards to housing etc. Given how broken the housing market is in this country, I don't think you can just dismiss immigration concerns and figures anymore as right wing racists who hate all foreigners " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your last paragraph nails it. We have an ageing population which means we need to tax working people more or increase immigration to fund the pensions, health and care needs of this increasingly unwell cohort of people. We also need people to deliver this. In the last few years we have seen strikes not only from the usual suspects but from NHS workers who have never gone on strike before. Immigration has trebled since the Brexit vote and with 40k of the 740k being 'illegal' you have to be honest with the population that 700k is legal and needed. They won't as it's a bogeyman to people to point to and say they are getting tough on the smaller number while hoping people think it's the bigger number. You may as well get tough with the tides for all the use it will do. If they wanted to bring down immigration they could fund adult education, children's education, and the NHS to enable people to get to work and re-train. But they don't. However, there are 1.6 million people on unemployment benefit. If they all could somehow retrain in exactly the industries and jobs we needed them to tomorrow then we could stop this current level of immigration for 2 and a bit years to get to zero unemployment. Then what? This conservative party is banging on about immigration as it has nothing to show for 13 years of government save Gay Marriage. They are out of ideas and trying to shore up their base who are going to reform to try and avoid getting under 100 seats. All western counties need immigrants. If you don't agree then I'm sorry but you are into the 'alternative facts' catagory of person. The money and people to provide the care for the old isn't there otherwise. " 740k in legal migration a year that's an awful lot of paperwork each individual application has to be checked granted or dismissed, what is the math per day to be checked. Then you have 40k in illegal migration and it is presented as an impossible task.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your last paragraph nails it. We have an ageing population which means we need to tax working people more or increase immigration to fund the pensions, health and care needs of this increasingly unwell cohort of people. We also need people to deliver this. In the last few years we have seen strikes not only from the usual suspects but from NHS workers who have never gone on strike before. Immigration has trebled since the Brexit vote and with 40k of the 740k being 'illegal' you have to be honest with the population that 700k is legal and needed. They won't as it's a bogeyman to people to point to and say they are getting tough on the smaller number while hoping people think it's the bigger number. You may as well get tough with the tides for all the use it will do. If they wanted to bring down immigration they could fund adult education, children's education, and the NHS to enable people to get to work and re-train. But they don't. However, there are 1.6 million people on unemployment benefit. If they all could somehow retrain in exactly the industries and jobs we needed them to tomorrow then we could stop this current level of immigration for 2 and a bit years to get to zero unemployment. Then what? This conservative party is banging on about immigration as it has nothing to show for 13 years of government save Gay Marriage. They are out of ideas and trying to shore up their base who are going to reform to try and avoid getting under 100 seats. All western counties need immigrants. If you don't agree then I'm sorry but you are into the 'alternative facts' catagory of person. The money and people to provide the care for the old isn't there otherwise. 740k in legal migration a year that's an awful lot of paperwork each individual application has to be checked granted or dismissed, what is the math per day to be checked. Then you have 40k in illegal migration and it is presented as an impossible task. "I'm sure there are fast tracks. If you consider NHS employers are going out to get thousands of nurses, they won't want future staff held up by red tape. Don't forget over 60% are health and social care staff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your last paragraph nails it. We have an ageing population which means we need to tax working people more or increase immigration to fund the pensions, health and care needs of this increasingly unwell cohort of people. We also need people to deliver this. In the last few years we have seen strikes not only from the usual suspects but from NHS workers who have never gone on strike before. Immigration has trebled since the Brexit vote and with 40k of the 740k being 'illegal' you have to be honest with the population that 700k is legal and needed. They won't as it's a bogeyman to people to point to and say they are getting tough on the smaller number while hoping people think it's the bigger number. You may as well get tough with the tides for all the use it will do. If they wanted to bring down immigration they could fund adult education, children's education, and the NHS to enable people to get to work and re-train. But they don't. However, there are 1.6 million people on unemployment benefit. If they all could somehow retrain in exactly the industries and jobs we needed them to tomorrow then we could stop this current level of immigration for 2 and a bit years to get to zero unemployment. Then what? This conservative party is banging on about immigration as it has nothing to show for 13 years of government save Gay Marriage. They are out of ideas and trying to shore up their base who are going to reform to try and avoid getting under 100 seats. All western counties need immigrants. If you don't agree then I'm sorry but you are into the 'alternative facts' catagory of person. The money and people to provide the care for the old isn't there otherwise. 740k in legal migration a year that's an awful lot of paperwork each individual application has to be checked granted or dismissed, what is the math per day to be checked. Then you have 40k in illegal migration and it is presented as an impossible task.
I'm sure there are fast tracks. If you consider NHS employers are going out to get thousands of nurses, they won't want future staff held up by red tape. Don't forget over 60% are health and social care staff."the 740k figure is the ones whos visa applications have been successful, how many are rejected and how many apply, it just smells a bit suss that 40k a year is presented as an impossible task. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your last paragraph nails it. We have an ageing population which means we need to tax working people more or increase immigration to fund the pensions, health and care needs of this increasingly unwell cohort of people. We also need people to deliver this. In the last few years we have seen strikes not only from the usual suspects but from NHS workers who have never gone on strike before. Immigration has trebled since the Brexit vote and with 40k of the 740k being 'illegal' you have to be honest with the population that 700k is legal and needed. They won't as it's a bogeyman to people to point to and say they are getting tough on the smaller number while hoping people think it's the bigger number. You may as well get tough with the tides for all the use it will do. If they wanted to bring down immigration they could fund adult education, children's education, and the NHS to enable people to get to work and re-train. But they don't. However, there are 1.6 million people on unemployment benefit. If they all could somehow retrain in exactly the industries and jobs we needed them to tomorrow then we could stop this current level of immigration for 2 and a bit years to get to zero unemployment. Then what? This conservative party is banging on about immigration as it has nothing to show for 13 years of government save Gay Marriage. They are out of ideas and trying to shore up their base who are going to reform to try and avoid getting under 100 seats. All western counties need immigrants. If you don't agree then I'm sorry but you are into the 'alternative facts' catagory of person. The money and people to provide the care for the old isn't there otherwise. 740k in legal migration a year that's an awful lot of paperwork each individual application has to be checked granted or dismissed, what is the math per day to be checked. Then you have 40k in illegal migration and it is presented as an impossible task.
I'm sure there are fast tracks. If you consider NHS employers are going out to get thousands of nurses, they won't want future staff held up by red tape. Don't forget over 60% are health and social care staff.
the 740k figure is the ones whos visa applications have been successful, how many are rejected and how many apply, it just smells a bit suss that 40k a year is presented as an impossible task. "Some of the difference could be that some apply for visas, fill out forms and provide proof of ID so relatively quick to process. Where as others arrive by irregular means without any ID or documentation to show who they are or where they came from | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your last paragraph nails it. We have an ageing population which means we need to tax working people more or increase immigration to fund the pensions, health and care needs of this increasingly unwell cohort of people. We also need people to deliver this. In the last few years we have seen strikes not only from the usual suspects but from NHS workers who have never gone on strike before. Immigration has trebled since the Brexit vote and with 40k of the 740k being 'illegal' you have to be honest with the population that 700k is legal and needed. They won't as it's a bogeyman to people to point to and say they are getting tough on the smaller number while hoping people think it's the bigger number. You may as well get tough with the tides for all the use it will do. If they wanted to bring down immigration they could fund adult education, children's education, and the NHS to enable people to get to work and re-train. But they don't. However, there are 1.6 million people on unemployment benefit. If they all could somehow retrain in exactly the industries and jobs we needed them to tomorrow then we could stop this current level of immigration for 2 and a bit years to get to zero unemployment. Then what? This conservative party is banging on about immigration as it has nothing to show for 13 years of government save Gay Marriage. They are out of ideas and trying to shore up their base who are going to reform to try and avoid getting under 100 seats. All western counties need immigrants. If you don't agree then I'm sorry but you are into the 'alternative facts' catagory of person. The money and people to provide the care for the old isn't there otherwise. 740k in legal migration a year that's an awful lot of paperwork each individual application has to be checked granted or dismissed, what is the math per day to be checked. Then you have 40k in illegal migration and it is presented as an impossible task.
I'm sure there are fast tracks. If you consider NHS employers are going out to get thousands of nurses, they won't want future staff held up by red tape. Don't forget over 60% are health and social care staff.
the 740k figure is the ones whos visa applications have been successful, how many are rejected and how many apply, it just smells a bit suss that 40k a year is presented as an impossible task. "That's cos the govt don't want them. So the small boats are the bigger problem  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think it's much of an issue for the great majority of people. The noise and bluster is all from the conservative party, who are going through a likely extinction blow. Their warring factions are fighting for the leadership position, for when Sunak is gone. They don't particularly care about the country or probably immigration, they are just using it as a headline grabbing tool. We need to have the immigrants for the work and to study. Our demographics make it essential for the staff to come. Let the government shame themselves and see how the election goes " It's a massive issue for a large portion of the electorate. Just as much working class labour voters as well as the evil Tory gammon. I genuinely don't mean this to come across as condescending but if you don't think it's a major issue for people both sides of the isle maybe you are blinded by what ever your political or social bubble may be? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's very curious. Looking at the posts across many threads, a pattern emerges. Many of the people who decry (selectively) immigration to Israel over the late 19th and early 20th century, seem to defend immigration to the UK, and even suggest that concerns over demographic shifts are absurd. Conversely, many (fewer, though) people who support the demographic shifts in Israel over the past century are hugely concerned by the prospect of immigrants with different, cultures and wealth profiles coming here. It's not clear cut, it's very complex, but the overall tone from some people seems to shift depending on which countries are being discussed. Just an observation... Happy to be corrected." A really good and thought provoking post. You have chosen a very current and somewhat hyperbolic example. I have pondered this over meny other issues that can be seen from the "right" or "left" I really try to put my self in the shoes of others and try to understand why they think the way they do on a certain issue. I always struggle with how people can apply there own logic so inconsistently and contradictory from one issue to the next. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's very curious. Looking at the posts across many threads, a pattern emerges. Many of the people who decry (selectively) immigration to Israel over the late 19th and early 20th century, seem to defend immigration to the UK, and even suggest that concerns over demographic shifts are absurd. Conversely, many (fewer, though) people who support the demographic shifts in Israel over the past century are hugely concerned by the prospect of immigrants with different, cultures and wealth profiles coming here. It's not clear cut, it's very complex, but the overall tone from some people seems to shift depending on which countries are being discussed. Just an observation... Happy to be corrected." Whatever people's povs are, immigration must either, match migration, or match growth of the country's infrastructure. Part of Brexit came about due to immigration and perceived no control of our borders. Until our govt invests in health and social care staff in this country, it ain't happening! Is it just a coincidence that Brexit has occurred at a time we have the greatest vacancies in these areas? When will govts look at the bigger picture? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's very curious. Looking at the posts across many threads, a pattern emerges. Many of the people who decry (selectively) immigration to Israel over the late 19th and early 20th century, seem to defend immigration to the UK, and even suggest that concerns over demographic shifts are absurd. Conversely, many (fewer, though) people who support the demographic shifts in Israel over the past century are hugely concerned by the prospect of immigrants with different, cultures and wealth profiles coming here. It's not clear cut, it's very complex, but the overall tone from some people seems to shift depending on which countries are being discussed. Just an observation... Happy to be corrected. A really good and thought provoking post. You have chosen a very current and somewhat hyperbolic example. I have pondered this over meny other issues that can be seen from the "right" or "left" I really try to put my self in the shoes of others and try to understand why they think the way they do on a certain issue. I always struggle with how people can apply there own logic so inconsistently and contradictory from one issue to the next." Their rationales will be based on their knowledge at the time of espousing. Rationales will be influenced by emotions (which are not rational and therefore likely to be contradictory). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In my opinion it's only a hot topic because the media have made it a hot topic, and of course our could not organise a piss up in a brewery government have spent a fortune on failed policy's giving the looney right ammunition " You no longer need the media to highlight this issue when lots of people can see local hotels closed to house migrants, laying of the staff in the process. It's not just an issue on the coast it is across the country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think it's much of an issue for the great majority of people. The noise and bluster is all from the conservative party, who are going through a likely extinction blow. Their warring factions are fighting for the leadership position, for when Sunak is gone. They don't particularly care about the country or probably immigration, they are just using it as a headline grabbing tool. We need to have the immigrants for the work and to study. Our demographics make it essential for the staff to come. Let the government shame themselves and see how the election goes It's a massive issue for a large portion of the electorate. Just as much working class labour voters as well as the evil Tory gammon. I genuinely don't mean this to come across as condescending but if you don't think it's a major issue for people both sides of the isle maybe you are blinded by what ever your political or social bubble may be?" It is condescending as it is not born out by facts and you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. When asked about the important issues facing the UK today, the most commonly reported issues continue to be the cost of living (93%), the NHS (89%), the economy (76%), and climate change and the environment (59%).27 Jan 2023 That's from those liberal communists at the office for national statistics. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think it's much of an issue for the great majority of people. The noise and bluster is all from the conservative party, who are going through a likely extinction blow. Their warring factions are fighting for the leadership position, for when Sunak is gone. They don't particularly care about the country or probably immigration, they are just using it as a headline grabbing tool. We need to have the immigrants for the work and to study. Our demographics make it essential for the staff to come. Let the government shame themselves and see how the election goes It's a massive issue for a large portion of the electorate. Just as much working class labour voters as well as the evil Tory gammon. I genuinely don't mean this to come across as condescending but if you don't think it's a major issue for people both sides of the isle maybe you are blinded by what ever your political or social bubble may be? It is condescending as it is not born out by facts and you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. When asked about the important issues facing the UK today, the most commonly reported issues continue to be the cost of living (93%), the NHS (89%), the economy (76%), and climate change and the environment (59%).27 Jan 2023 That's from those liberal communists at the office for national statistics. " On LK, Sunday, immigration was a third on the list of important issues for the electorate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's very curious. Looking at the posts across many threads, a pattern emerges. Many of the people who decry (selectively) immigration to Israel over the late 19th and early 20th century, seem to defend immigration to the UK, and even suggest that concerns over demographic shifts are absurd. Conversely, many (fewer, though) people who support the demographic shifts in Israel over the past century are hugely concerned by the prospect of immigrants with different, cultures and wealth profiles coming here. It's not clear cut, it's very complex, but the overall tone from some people seems to shift depending on which countries are being discussed. Just an observation... Happy to be corrected. A really good and thought provoking post. You have chosen a very current and somewhat hyperbolic example. I have pondered this over meny other issues that can be seen from the "right" or "left" I really try to put my self in the shoes of others and try to understand why they think the way they do on a certain issue. I always struggle with how people can apply there own logic so inconsistently and contradictory from one issue to the next." It is a form of NIMBYISM The world and all these issues are highly complex and any point of view often requires caveats ad infinitum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To add... Too often people seem to think these arguments and points of view are binary or black & white with no nuance or grey areas. So for example... 1. Person argues against illegal immigration = accused of being anti-immigration per se. 2. Person argues for people arriving in boats to be treated humanely and not automatically considered dodgy = accused of being “lefty” who wants open door policy. 3. Person raises a concern that the cultural balance and societal behaviours we view as traditionally British is under threat by increased immigration = accused of being racist. 4. Person raises point that the UK (and West) foreign policy has seriously impacted on the lives of people in some parts of the world causing them to want/need to escape and that we therefore have some moral duty to help = accused of hating the UK and being anti-patriotic Etc Personally I think one person could be concerned about all of those things simultaneously so how can they be accused of anything other than trying to understand the complexity!" We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Think about life and death at others' hands legally: abortion and death penalties. Do they go hand in hand? Look at America and the states that have ruled abortion as illegal, do they also have the death penalty? Personally I'm pro-choice (albeit I'd like to see the the maximum term reduced for abortions). I'd like to see the death penalty for serial killers (irrefutable evidence for at least three murders but accused of more). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To add... Too often people seem to think these arguments and points of view are binary or black & white with no nuance or grey areas. So for example... 1. Person argues against illegal immigration = accused of being anti-immigration per se. 2. Person argues for people arriving in boats to be treated humanely and not automatically considered dodgy = accused of being “lefty” who wants open door policy. 3. Person raises a concern that the cultural balance and societal behaviours we view as traditionally British is under threat by increased immigration = accused of being racist. 4. Person raises point that the UK (and West) foreign policy has seriously impacted on the lives of people in some parts of the world causing them to want/need to escape and that we therefore have some moral duty to help = accused of hating the UK and being anti-patriotic Etc Personally I think one person could be concerned about all of those things simultaneously so how can they be accused of anything other than trying to understand the complexity! We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Think about life and death at others' hands legally: abortion and death penalties. Do they go hand in hand? Look at America and the states that have ruled abortion as illegal, do they also have the death penalty? Personally I'm pro-choice (albeit I'd like to see the the maximum term reduced for abortions). I'd like to see the death penalty for serial killers (irrefutable evidence for at least three murders but accused of more)." Agree, especially... "We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to." Yet often on here (and elsewhere) much of the arguing is people failing to accept that. It is tribalism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To add... Too often people seem to think these arguments and points of view are binary or black & white with no nuance or grey areas. So for example... 1. Person argues against illegal immigration = accused of being anti-immigration per se. 2. Person argues for people arriving in boats to be treated humanely and not automatically considered dodgy = accused of being “lefty” who wants open door policy. 3. Person raises a concern that the cultural balance and societal behaviours we view as traditionally British is under threat by increased immigration = accused of being racist. 4. Person raises point that the UK (and West) foreign policy has seriously impacted on the lives of people in some parts of the world causing them to want/need to escape and that we therefore have some moral duty to help = accused of hating the UK and being anti-patriotic Etc Personally I think one person could be concerned about all of those things simultaneously so how can they be accused of anything other than trying to understand the complexity! We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Think about life and death at others' hands legally: abortion and death penalties. Do they go hand in hand? Look at America and the states that have ruled abortion as illegal, do they also have the death penalty? Personally I'm pro-choice (albeit I'd like to see the the maximum term reduced for abortions). I'd like to see the death penalty for serial killers (irrefutable evidence for at least three murders but accused of more). Agree, especially... We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Yet often on here (and elsewhere) much of the arguing is people failing to accept that. It is tribalism." True. I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To add... Too often people seem to think these arguments and points of view are binary or black & white with no nuance or grey areas. So for example... 1. Person argues against illegal immigration = accused of being anti-immigration per se. 2. Person argues for people arriving in boats to be treated humanely and not automatically considered dodgy = accused of being “lefty” who wants open door policy. 3. Person raises a concern that the cultural balance and societal behaviours we view as traditionally British is under threat by increased immigration = accused of being racist. 4. Person raises point that the UK (and West) foreign policy has seriously impacted on the lives of people in some parts of the world causing them to want/need to escape and that we therefore have some moral duty to help = accused of hating the UK and being anti-patriotic Etc Personally I think one person could be concerned about all of those things simultaneously so how can they be accused of anything other than trying to understand the complexity!" That's just human nature. We are all lazy thinkers. And this issue happens mostly online. My own friends vote for different parties. I wouldn't rush to class them as lefty or right wing because I know them well personally and I know that their views are much more nuanced. It's not the case on the internet. Your entire view about a person is shaped by a few comments they make. People being lazy thinkers are much more comfortable putting them in simple groups. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To add... Too often people seem to think these arguments and points of view are binary or black & white with no nuance or grey areas. So for example... 1. Person argues against illegal immigration = accused of being anti-immigration per se. 2. Person argues for people arriving in boats to be treated humanely and not automatically considered dodgy = accused of being “lefty” who wants open door policy. 3. Person raises a concern that the cultural balance and societal behaviours we view as traditionally British is under threat by increased immigration = accused of being racist. 4. Person raises point that the UK (and West) foreign policy has seriously impacted on the lives of people in some parts of the world causing them to want/need to escape and that we therefore have some moral duty to help = accused of hating the UK and being anti-patriotic Etc Personally I think one person could be concerned about all of those things simultaneously so how can they be accused of anything other than trying to understand the complexity! That's just human nature. We are all lazy thinkers. And this issue happens mostly online. My own friends vote for different parties. I wouldn't rush to class them as lefty or right wing because I know them well personally and I know that their views are much more nuanced. It's not the case on the internet. Your entire view about a person is shaped by a few comments they make. People being lazy thinkers are much more comfortable putting them in simple groups. " So true. You see it in here every single day! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't think it's much of an issue for the great majority of people. The noise and bluster is all from the conservative party, who are going through a likely extinction blow. Their warring factions are fighting for the leadership position, for when Sunak is gone. They don't particularly care about the country or probably immigration, they are just using it as a headline grabbing tool. We need to have the immigrants for the work and to study. Our demographics make it essential for the staff to come. Let the government shame themselves and see how the election goes It's a massive issue for a large portion of the electorate. Just as much working class labour voters as well as the evil Tory gammon. I genuinely don't mean this to come across as condescending but if you don't think it's a major issue for people both sides of the isle maybe you are blinded by what ever your political or social bubble may be? It is condescending as it is not born out by facts and you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. When asked about the important issues facing the UK today, the most commonly reported issues continue to be the cost of living (93%), the NHS (89%), the economy (76%), and climate change and the environment (59%).27 Jan 2023 That's from those liberal communists at the office for national statistics. " How meny of those issues are heavily effected by mass migration?? All of them... And it is born out in fact.. "Public opinion on migration in the United Kingdom is divided In April 2023, 32% thought immigration was a very bad or a bad thing, while 52% thought their numbers should be reduced" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's very curious. Looking at the posts across many threads, a pattern emerges. Many of the people who decry (selectively) immigration to Israel over the late 19th and early 20th century, seem to defend immigration to the UK, and even suggest that concerns over demographic shifts are absurd. Conversely, many (fewer, though) people who support the demographic shifts in Israel over the past century are hugely concerned by the prospect of immigrants with different, cultures and wealth profiles coming here. It's not clear cut, it's very complex, but the overall tone from some people seems to shift depending on which countries are being discussed. Just an observation... Happy to be corrected." I think this is a fair shout. The key difference between Jewish migration and other humanitarian migration is that most other cases do not involve the creation of a new state, nor see (as I understand it) various rounds of forceful taking land and property from the existing owners (my knowledge here is limited but growing). But notwithstanding the Zionist side, it does show what happens when a small country is asked to take a large burden of a refugee crisis (assumption being early 20c was largely a Jewish crisis). We shouldn't be asking a few countries to shoulder the burden because *reasons*. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To add... Too often people seem to think these arguments and points of view are binary or black & white with no nuance or grey areas. So for example... 1. Person argues against illegal immigration = accused of being anti-immigration per se. 2. Person argues for people arriving in boats to be treated humanely and not automatically considered dodgy = accused of being “lefty” who wants open door policy. 3. Person raises a concern that the cultural balance and societal behaviours we view as traditionally British is under threat by increased immigration = accused of being racist. 4. Person raises point that the UK (and West) foreign policy has seriously impacted on the lives of people in some parts of the world causing them to want/need to escape and that we therefore have some moral duty to help = accused of hating the UK and being anti-patriotic Etc Personally I think one person could be concerned about all of those things simultaneously so how can they be accused of anything other than trying to understand the complexity! We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Think about life and death at others' hands legally: abortion and death penalties. Do they go hand in hand? Look at America and the states that have ruled abortion as illegal, do they also have the death penalty? Personally I'm pro-choice (albeit I'd like to see the the maximum term reduced for abortions). I'd like to see the death penalty for serial killers (irrefutable evidence for at least three murders but accused of more). Agree, especially... We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Yet often on here (and elsewhere) much of the arguing is people failing to accept that. It is tribalism. True. I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud "Same, I'm center left but the left has gone so far left it leaves me feeling like I'm perpetually arguing for the right. I really hope we can see a return of more pragmatic centrist politics.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To add... Too often people seem to think these arguments and points of view are binary or black & white with no nuance or grey areas. So for example... 1. Person argues against illegal immigration = accused of being anti-immigration per se. 2. Person argues for people arriving in boats to be treated humanely and not automatically considered dodgy = accused of being “lefty” who wants open door policy. 3. Person raises a concern that the cultural balance and societal behaviours we view as traditionally British is under threat by increased immigration = accused of being racist. 4. Person raises point that the UK (and West) foreign policy has seriously impacted on the lives of people in some parts of the world causing them to want/need to escape and that we therefore have some moral duty to help = accused of hating the UK and being anti-patriotic Etc Personally I think one person could be concerned about all of those things simultaneously so how can they be accused of anything other than trying to understand the complexity! We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Think about life and death at others' hands legally: abortion and death penalties. Do they go hand in hand? Look at America and the states that have ruled abortion as illegal, do they also have the death penalty? Personally I'm pro-choice (albeit I'd like to see the the maximum term reduced for abortions). I'd like to see the death penalty for serial killers (irrefutable evidence for at least three murders but accused of more). Agree, especially... We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Yet often on here (and elsewhere) much of the arguing is people failing to accept that. It is tribalism. True. I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
Same, I'm center left but the left has gone so far left it leaves me feeling like I'm perpetually arguing for the right. I really hope we can see a return of more pragmatic centrist politics.."Labour was more left with Corbyn. He made my blood boil with the "if you support labour it has to be remain". The referendum was never about political leanings. It was never purely about immigration. I believe us oldies and those older, wanted to return the EU to its common market humble beginnings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"return the EU to its common market humble beginnings." That means freedom of movement of workers. The freedom of workers to provide services without discrimination on ground of nationality has been part of the EU and its predecessors since it started. Since then, the freedom of movement of workers has been extended to all citizens of the member countries. Freedom of movement is not a free-for-all. If you are a citizen of an EU country staying in another EU country for more than three months, you may be subject to conditions. For example, you may have to register your address where you are living. You may need health insurance. You may have to prove you can support yourself. If you are a student you may have to show you're on a recognised course. On another subject. The Migrants' Rights group says, "We reject the word “illegal” to describe undocumented migrants. This word is dehumanising, immoral, inaccurate, and contributes to the demonisation of migrant communities". They say, there are zero "illegal" migrants in the UK. An action may be illegal but not a person. The fact that the Government has now got a ministerial post with this non-word in the title seems to me to be grotesque. https://migrantsrights.org.uk/projects/wordsmatter/illegal-immigration/ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I bet the French are laugthing at us with the Rwanda bill and the tory baffons. And who would blame them I am with the French. When we were in the EU didn't have the same problem and lot more Nurses and Care workers. " It seems that the French can't make up their minds about immigration, either... BBC News - Emmanuel Macron's government in crisis after migration bill defeat https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67683314 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To add... Too often people seem to think these arguments and points of view are binary or black & white with no nuance or grey areas. So for example... 1. Person argues against illegal immigration = accused of being anti-immigration per se. 2. Person argues for people arriving in boats to be treated humanely and not automatically considered dodgy = accused of being “lefty” who wants open door policy. 3. Person raises a concern that the cultural balance and societal behaviours we view as traditionally British is under threat by increased immigration = accused of being racist. 4. Person raises point that the UK (and West) foreign policy has seriously impacted on the lives of people in some parts of the world causing them to want/need to escape and that we therefore have some moral duty to help = accused of hating the UK and being anti-patriotic Etc Personally I think one person could be concerned about all of those things simultaneously so how can they be accused of anything other than trying to understand the complexity! We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Think about life and death at others' hands legally: abortion and death penalties. Do they go hand in hand? Look at America and the states that have ruled abortion as illegal, do they also have the death penalty? Personally I'm pro-choice (albeit I'd like to see the the maximum term reduced for abortions). I'd like to see the death penalty for serial killers (irrefutable evidence for at least three murders but accused of more). Agree, especially... We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Yet often on here (and elsewhere) much of the arguing is people failing to accept that. It is tribalism. True. I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
Same, I'm center left but the left has gone so far left it leaves me feeling like I'm perpetually arguing for the right. I really hope we can see a return of more pragmatic centrist politics.."There is no real left alternative in mainstream British politics. The current labour party are doing their best to be Tory-lite. Shame shit, less corruption. Where are you seeing the left go too far to the left? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud "It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top). But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To add... Too often people seem to think these arguments and points of view are binary or black & white with no nuance or grey areas. So for example... 1. Person argues against illegal immigration = accused of being anti-immigration per se. 2. Person argues for people arriving in boats to be treated humanely and not automatically considered dodgy = accused of being “lefty” who wants open door policy. 3. Person raises a concern that the cultural balance and societal behaviours we view as traditionally British is under threat by increased immigration = accused of being racist. 4. Person raises point that the UK (and West) foreign policy has seriously impacted on the lives of people in some parts of the world causing them to want/need to escape and that we therefore have some moral duty to help = accused of hating the UK and being anti-patriotic Etc Personally I think one person could be concerned about all of those things simultaneously so how can they be accused of anything other than trying to understand the complexity! We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Think about life and death at others' hands legally: abortion and death penalties. Do they go hand in hand? Look at America and the states that have ruled abortion as illegal, do they also have the death penalty? Personally I'm pro-choice (albeit I'd like to see the the maximum term reduced for abortions). I'd like to see the death penalty for serial killers (irrefutable evidence for at least three murders but accused of more). Agree, especially... We're human and don't to fit neatly into boxes that others may ascribe to. Yet often on here (and elsewhere) much of the arguing is people failing to accept that. It is tribalism. True. I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
Same, I'm center left but the left has gone so far left it leaves me feeling like I'm perpetually arguing for the right. I really hope we can see a return of more pragmatic centrist politics..
There is no real left alternative in mainstream British politics. The current labour party are doing their best to be Tory-lite. Shame shit, less corruption.
Where are you seeing the left go too far to the left?"'The left' is the electorate, not the party. Guaranteed those people will vote Labour though, even though the Greens are further left than Labour. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I bet the French are laugthing at us with the Rwanda bill and the tory baffons. And who would blame them I am with the French. When we were in the EU didn't have the same problem and lot more Nurses and Care workers. " Have we been out of the EU for over twenty years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum. "That's capitalism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"return the EU to its common market humble beginnings." "That means freedom of movement of workers. The freedom of workers to provide services without discrimination on ground of nationality has been part of the EU and its predecessors since it started." I believe the poster was referring to the EEC, which the UK joined in 1973. There was no freedom of movement in the EEC. That didn't come along until the move to the EU in 1993. "On another subject. The Migrants' Rights group says, "We reject the word “illegal” to describe undocumented migrants. This word is dehumanising, immoral, inaccurate, and contributes to the demonisation of migrant communities". They say, there are zero "illegal" migrants in the UK. An action may be illegal but not a person." They can argue with the dictionary all they like, but we've been using phrases like "illegal occupier" and "illegal trader" for hundreds of years. Those phrases don't imply that the person themselves is illegal, and no one thinks they do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your last paragraph nails it. We have an ageing population which means we need to tax working people more or increase immigration to fund the pensions, health and care needs of this increasingly unwell cohort of people. We also need people to deliver this. In the last few years we have seen strikes not only from the usual suspects but from NHS workers who have never gone on strike before. Immigration has trebled since the Brexit vote and with 40k of the 740k being 'illegal' you have to be honest with the population that 700k is legal and needed. They won't as it's a bogeyman to people to point to and say they are getting tough on the smaller number while hoping people think it's the bigger number. You may as well get tough with the tides for all the use it will do. If they wanted to bring down immigration they could fund adult education, children's education, and the NHS to enable people to get to work and re-train. But they don't. However, there are 1.6 million people on unemployment benefit. If they all could somehow retrain in exactly the industries and jobs we needed them to tomorrow then we could stop this current level of immigration for 2 and a bit years to get to zero unemployment. Then what? This conservative party is banging on about immigration as it has nothing to show for 13 years of government save Gay Marriage. They are out of ideas and trying to shore up their base who are going to reform to try and avoid getting under 100 seats. All western counties need immigrants. If you don't agree then I'm sorry but you are into the 'alternative facts' catagory of person. The money and people to provide the care for the old isn't there otherwise. We need university educated people for the majority of of healthcare jobs - nurses, doctors, physics and so on. In-house training for support workers and care staff. The govt isn't paying high enough wages to tempt people into these positions." This is two fold have hospitals for the science and medical and bring back cottage type hospitals for care, rehabilitation and therapy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your last paragraph nails it. We have an ageing population which means we need to tax working people more or increase immigration to fund the pensions, health and care needs of this increasingly unwell cohort of people. We also need people to deliver this. In the last few years we have seen strikes not only from the usual suspects but from NHS workers who have never gone on strike before. Immigration has trebled since the Brexit vote and with 40k of the 740k being 'illegal' you have to be honest with the population that 700k is legal and needed. They won't as it's a bogeyman to people to point to and say they are getting tough on the smaller number while hoping people think it's the bigger number. You may as well get tough with the tides for all the use it will do. If they wanted to bring down immigration they could fund adult education, children's education, and the NHS to enable people to get to work and re-train. But they don't. However, there are 1.6 million people on unemployment benefit. If they all could somehow retrain in exactly the industries and jobs we needed them to tomorrow then we could stop this current level of immigration for 2 and a bit years to get to zero unemployment. Then what? This conservative party is banging on about immigration as it has nothing to show for 13 years of government save Gay Marriage. They are out of ideas and trying to shore up their base who are going to reform to try and avoid getting under 100 seats. All western counties need immigrants. If you don't agree then I'm sorry but you are into the 'alternative facts' catagory of person. The money and people to provide the care for the old isn't there otherwise. We need university educated people for the majority of of healthcare jobs - nurses, doctors, physics and so on. In-house training for support workers and care staff. The govt isn't paying high enough wages to tempt people into these positions. This is two fold have hospitals for the science and medical and bring back cottage type hospitals for care, rehabilitation and therapy " There are rehab units and intermediate care units. Cannot have more as they wouldn't be staffed. We saw this happen with the nightingale centres. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum. "That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Brexit was simply a vote on continued membership of the EU. There were a myriad of reasons to vote either way, but a sinister wealth redistribution plot wasn't amongst them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was no freedom of movement in the EEC. That didn't come along until the move to the EU in 1993." Free movement of workers has been there since 1957. "The first provisions on the subject, in the 1957 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, covered the free movement of workers and freedom of establishment, and thus individuals as employees or service providers". https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-movement-of-persons | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum.
That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Brexit was simply a vote on continued membership of the EU. There were a myriad of reasons to vote either way, but a sinister wealth redistribution plot wasn't amongst them."I'm not talking about why people voted. I'm talking about why big corporations and the ultra wealthy and the likes of the ERG wanted to leave the EU, and put in a long term plan to implement it. The proof is in the pudding as they say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum.
That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Brexit was simply a vote on continued membership of the EU. There were a myriad of reasons to vote either way, but a sinister wealth redistribution plot wasn't amongst them.
I'm not talking about why people voted. I'm talking about why big corporations and the ultra wealthy and the likes of the ERG wanted to leave the EU, and put in a long term plan to implement it.
The proof is in the pudding as they say.
"Most business was pro Remain, but in any event the vote was decided by ordinary citizens not special interest groups. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum.
That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Brexit was simply a vote on continued membership of the EU. There were a myriad of reasons to vote either way, but a sinister wealth redistribution plot wasn't amongst them.
I'm not talking about why people voted. I'm talking about why big corporations and the ultra wealthy and the likes of the ERG wanted to leave the EU, and put in a long term plan to implement it.
The proof is in the pudding as they say.
Most business was pro Remain,
"Most small British businesses of course. They were aware of the impact of leaving the EU. " but in any event the vote was decided by ordinary citizens not special interest groups." You may have noticed that sections of the media had anti-EU nonsense stories for years and year (bendy bananas etc). And you may have noticed the leave campaigns were based on misinformation, disinformation and blatant lies. The electorate did not decide to leave the EU based on real life information. In anycase maybe we shouldn't derail the thread. If we want some classic Brexit banter we can start a new thread maybe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was no freedom of movement in the EEC. That didn't come along until the move to the EU in 1993." "Free movement of workers has been there since 1957. "The first provisions on the subject, in the 1957 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, covered the free movement of workers and freedom of establishment, and thus individuals as employees or service providers". https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-movement-of-persons" I was talking about general freedom of movement, even though you quite clearly said "freedom of movement of workers". I should read more carefully. I don't think many people would be worried by the idea of freedom of movement for workers. It's the idea of freedom of movement for the great unwashed that seems to bother people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was no freedom of movement in the EEC. That didn't come along until the move to the EU in 1993. Free movement of workers has been there since 1957. "The first provisions on the subject, in the 1957 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, covered the free movement of workers and freedom of establishment, and thus individuals as employees or service providers". https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/147/free-movement-of-persons I was talking about general freedom of movement, even though you quite clearly said "freedom of movement of workers". I should read more carefully. I don't think many people would be worried by the idea of freedom of movement for workers. It's the idea of freedom of movement for the great unwashed that seems to bother people." there's not absolute freedom of movement (although maybe one argue rules are so hard to enforce that its the equivalent). It looks like if someone doesn't have a realistic chance of getting a job and can't support themselves they can be sent back home. But I suspect part of the fear is the unwashed masses come over and steal jobs. It that happens that opens a whole new set of questions... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum.
That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Brexit was simply a vote on continued membership of the EU. There were a myriad of reasons to vote either way, but a sinister wealth redistribution plot wasn't amongst them.
I'm not talking about why people voted. I'm talking about why big corporations and the ultra wealthy and the likes of the ERG wanted to leave the EU, and put in a long term plan to implement it.
The proof is in the pudding as they say.
"What big corporations wanted the UK to leave the EU? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum.
That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Brexit was simply a vote on continued membership of the EU. There were a myriad of reasons to vote either way, but a sinister wealth redistribution plot wasn't amongst them.
I'm not talking about why people voted. I'm talking about why big corporations and the ultra wealthy and the likes of the ERG wanted to leave the EU, and put in a long term plan to implement it.
The proof is in the pudding as they say.
What big corporations wanted the UK to leave the EU?"Some examples, but I can't name every single one. Renaissance Technologies BAT Goldman Sachs Arcadia Group Dyson | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum.
That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Brexit was simply a vote on continued membership of the EU. There were a myriad of reasons to vote either way, but a sinister wealth redistribution plot wasn't amongst them.
I'm not talking about why people voted. I'm talking about why big corporations and the ultra wealthy and the likes of the ERG wanted to leave the EU, and put in a long term plan to implement it.
The proof is in the pudding as they say.
What big corporations wanted the UK to leave the EU?
Some examples, but I can't name every single one.
Renaissance Technologies
BAT
Goldman Sachs
Arcadia Group
Dyson
"Let’s talk about the voters who wanted brexit in their millions, where do they fit in to the grand scheme of things? Easily swayed? Brainwashed? London, Scotland and Northern Ireland votes were wiped out by votes from the West Midlands, East Midlands and east of England. The south east, North west and many other areas of England voted in favour of brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum.
That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Brexit was simply a vote on continued membership of the EU. There were a myriad of reasons to vote either way, but a sinister wealth redistribution plot wasn't amongst them.
I'm not talking about why people voted. I'm talking about why big corporations and the ultra wealthy and the likes of the ERG wanted to leave the EU, and put in a long term plan to implement it.
The proof is in the pudding as they say.
What big corporations wanted the UK to leave the EU?
Some examples, but I can't name every single one.
Renaissance Technologies
BAT
Goldman Sachs
Arcadia Group
Dyson
"Goldman sachs pumped significant sums into the REMAIN campaign and wanted the UK to remain.... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/20/goldman-sachs-backs-campaign-keep-britain-in-european-union-referendum Not known to be the gold standard of information but maybe go have a look at the REMAIN and LEAVE supporter lists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum The remain one is so long I gave up scrolling through it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum.
That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Brexit was simply a vote on continued membership of the EU. There were a myriad of reasons to vote either way, but a sinister wealth redistribution plot wasn't amongst them.
I'm not talking about why people voted. I'm talking about why big corporations and the ultra wealthy and the likes of the ERG wanted to leave the EU, and put in a long term plan to implement it.
The proof is in the pudding as they say.
What big corporations wanted the UK to leave the EU?
Some examples, but I can't name every single one.
Renaissance Technologies
BAT
Goldman Sachs
Arcadia Group
Dyson
Let’s talk about the voters who wanted brexit in their millions, where do they fit in to the grand scheme of things? "Sure, go for it. Why did they want Brexit? " Easily swayed? Brainwashed? London, Scotland and Northern Ireland votes were wiped out by votes from the West Midlands, East Midlands and east of England. The south east, North west and many other areas of England voted in favour of brexit. " Indeed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'd rather be an individual. It annoys me when people assume you're right leaning if you voted for Brexit. Oh so wrong! I'm a leftie Brexiteer! Aaaaaaand proud
It's a fair assumption (The core purpose of Brexit was to transfer wealth and power from those at the bottom, to those at the top).
But of course, you can vote anyway you want and consider yourself any side of the political spectrum.
That's tinfoil hat nonsense. Brexit was simply a vote on continued membership of the EU. There were a myriad of reasons to vote either way, but a sinister wealth redistribution plot wasn't amongst them.
I'm not talking about why people voted. I'm talking about why big corporations and the ultra wealthy and the likes of the ERG wanted to leave the EU, and put in a long term plan to implement it.
The proof is in the pudding as they say.
What big corporations wanted the UK to leave the EU?
Some examples, but I can't name every single one.
Renaissance Technologies
BAT
Goldman Sachs
Arcadia Group
Dyson
Goldman sachs pumped significant sums into the REMAIN campaign and wanted the UK to remain....
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/20/goldman-sachs-backs-campaign-keep-britain-in-european-union-referendum
Not known to be the gold standard of information but maybe go have a look at the REMAIN and LEAVE supporter lists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
The remain one is so long I gave up scrolling through it "GS also put money into either Leave.eu or the other crowd. I forget which. But sure, some businesses wanted to remain. Some knew Brexit would be bad for them, some took a gamble that Brexit would allow the government to reduce environmental standards and works rights etc (looking at Tim Martin). Other backers from the US wanted to be able to buy into a potentially deregulated UK market for healthcare, food produce etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder if that's why the refugee conventions that the UK helped to write say, it is a principle that someone must not be punished for seeking asylum and do not have to stop in the first 'safe' country." No, it isn't. The Convention was written to protect those people that had fled Nazi Germany. After the war some countries started to think that maybe they had let too many Jews in, and began to turf them out, using the excuse that they hadn't registered when they arrived. The bit of the Convention that prevents protection for immigration issues was written to prevent that. There is nothing in the Convention that says refugees do not have to stop in the first safe country. The only wording says that someone must have travelled "directly" to the country of refuge. The word 'directly' isn't defined in the Convention, and it has been down to judges to develop case law over the decades. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nothing in the Convention that says refugees do not have to stop in the first safe country. The only wording says that someone must have travelled "directly" to the country of refuge. The word 'directly' isn't defined in the Convention, and it has been down to judges to develop case law over the decades." Yes, Fullfact agrees that the word "directly" is indeed not defined. It seems to me that Fullfact is a more reliable source than the former Prime Minister Johnson. This article: https://fullfact.org/immigration/can-refugees-enter-uk-illegally/ says, ----- "Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”. A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK. However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere. This means people who enter the UK by illegal means can legitimately make a claim for asylum, even after passing through other “safe” countries, provided they do so directly after arriving." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nothing in the Convention that says refugees do not have to stop in the first safe country. The only wording says that someone must have travelled "directly" to the country of refuge. The word 'directly' isn't defined in the Convention, and it has been down to judges to develop case law over the decades. Yes, Fullfact agrees that the word "directly" is indeed not defined. It seems to me that Fullfact is a more reliable source than the former Prime Minister Johnson. This article: https://fullfact.org/immigration/can-refugees-enter-uk-illegally/ says, ----- "Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”. A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK. However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere. This means people who enter the UK by illegal means can legitimately make a claim for asylum, even after passing through other “safe” countries, provided they do so directly after arriving."" I’m confident that the majority are not at all worried about genuine refugees arriving in the UK to seek asylum. I’m also confident that the majority are worried about people arriving by illegal means in the UK, under the pretence of being a refugee. That is the problem, nothing more or less | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to me that Fullfact is a more reliable source than the former Prime Minister Johnson." I'm not sure where that came from. You're the first person to mention Boris in this thread. "This means people who enter the UK by illegal means can legitimately make a claim for asylum, even after passing through other “safe” countries, provided they do so directly after arriving." And provided that they travelled 'directly'. A person that spends 2 months in France, slowly walking from South to North, can claim to have travelled directly. A person that got transport to Calais and then spent 2 months living there, can't be said to have travelled directly. It's a very complex area of law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is nothing in the Convention that says refugees do not have to stop in the first safe country. The only wording says that someone must have travelled "directly" to the country of refuge. The word 'directly' isn't defined in the Convention, and it has been down to judges to develop case law over the decades. Yes, Fullfact agrees that the word "directly" is indeed not defined. It seems to me that Fullfact is a more reliable source than the former Prime Minister Johnson. This article: https://fullfact.org/immigration/can-refugees-enter-uk-illegally/ says, ----- "Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”. A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK. However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere. This means people who enter the UK by illegal means can legitimately make a claim for asylum, even after passing through other “safe” countries, provided they do so directly after arriving." I’m confident that the majority are not at all worried about genuine refugees arriving in the UK to seek asylum. I’m also confident that the majority are worried about people arriving by illegal means in the UK, under the pretence of being a refugee. That is the problem, nothing more or less" as many of those arriving via irregular means are genuine, I'd say the majority are worried about those who aren't actual refugees but seeking to exploit the system. That's reasonable to me. But for this to be an issue, then the concern is either a) they can exploit the system or b) they are being caught, but not removed. I'd need to understand how (a) is happening. If people are concerned here, I'd like to know their views on the current approach to the backlog (which is a ten page questionnaire for people from certain countries) (b) feels to me to be where we should be focussing our energies. I wonder if a Rwanda style scheme works here. If we have found them to not be genuine, then their is less of a refoulement concern. It would also act as more of a deterrent to system players as tej odds of ending up there will be a lot shorter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
