Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
768 said:
SilverSixer said:
768 said:
If a refugee makes it from Syria to the UK it seems there was nowhere in between suitable for them.
Nothing about that means someone else didn't find somewhere adequately safe along what is a 4000+ mile journey.
I see. The one who made it to the UK is being wilful. So the UK shouldn't take a share. Or any.Nothing about that means someone else didn't find somewhere adequately safe along what is a 4000+ mile journey.
OK.
I'll leave you to it Worzel. Happy trolling.
B'stard Child said:
bmw535i said:
Our non EU immigration policies have been changed as a result of EU immigration and EU influence.
I raised that specific issue (with a good example of how wrong it was) as one of my 273 reason to vote leave pre "independance day" - it wasn't discussed and many of the same people here still won't discuss it properly...Trying to explain to people that if they put words such as 'childcare' or 'help' on their visa applications as reasons for coming to visit, they will be refused, is quite difficult. Also trying to get people from developing countries to provide financial evidence that they will return there is difficult.
There are mutliple spurious reasons the HO give for refusing entry to non EU migrants because they are under pressure to reduce immigration figures as the complete lack of control over EU migrants continues.
bmw535i said:
B'stard Child said:
bmw535i said:
Our non EU immigration policies have been changed as a result of EU immigration and EU influence.
I raised that specific issue (with a good example of how wrong it was) as one of my 273 reason to vote leave pre "independance day" - it wasn't discussed and many of the same people here still won't discuss it properly...Trying to explain to people that if they put words such as 'childcare' or 'help' on their visa applications as reasons for coming to visit, they will be refused, is quite difficult. Also trying to get people from developing countries to provide financial evidence that they will return there is difficult.
There are mutliple spurious reasons the HO give for refusing entry to non EU migrants because they are under pressure to reduce immigration figures as the complete lack of control over EU migrants continues.
My friend tried 3 times to get his wife into the UK - nearly a grand in fees - each time turned down.
In the end he went the resident of EU country first route and a year later they couldn't do a damn thing but what a waste from a whole number of perspectives
B'stard Child said:
bmw535i said:
B'stard Child said:
bmw535i said:
Our non EU immigration policies have been changed as a result of EU immigration and EU influence.
I raised that specific issue (with a good example of how wrong it was) as one of my 273 reason to vote leave pre "independance day" - it wasn't discussed and many of the same people here still won't discuss it properly...Trying to explain to people that if they put words such as 'childcare' or 'help' on their visa applications as reasons for coming to visit, they will be refused, is quite difficult. Also trying to get people from developing countries to provide financial evidence that they will return there is difficult.
There are mutliple spurious reasons the HO give for refusing entry to non EU migrants because they are under pressure to reduce immigration figures as the complete lack of control over EU migrants continues.
My friend tried 3 times to get his wife into the UK - nearly a grand in fees - each time turned down.
In the end he went the resident of EU country first route and a year later they couldn't do a damn thing but what a waste from a whole number of perspectives
And I thought it wasn't about immigration? Lots of heat being generated by Leave voters around a subject which was apparently nothing to do with the referendum result.
Round and round we go.
bmw535i said:
Mrr T said:
bmw535i said:
Mrr T said:
bmw535i said:
This country was basically forced by the EU to take "refugees" (some were "children") from both Syria and Calais. We do not have full control over our non EU immigration policy.
This statement is totally incorrect.The EU wanted the UK to take refugees from the rest of the rUK. The UK refused and only took them from Syria directly. This was a decision by the UK government under pressure from some hand wringers.
The UK took unaccompanied children (sic) from the Calais camp in an agreement between the French and UK governments.
Both these decisions were made by the UK government. So by definition the UK government has total control over non EU immigration.
Only if by “we” you mean the PH posters would my post have confirmed your comment.
Our non EU immigration policies have been changed as a result of EU immigration and EU influence.
You said the EU forced the UK to take immigrants from Syria. It did not the EU wanted the UK to take immigrants from the rEU.
So the UK government did exactly the opposite of what the EU wanted but it’s still the EU forcing the UK to do it. That’s a very odd argument. You can argue the BBC and some MP’s forced the government but not the EU.
I see you have now dropped any reference to the immigrants from Calais.
So let’s be clear in both the instances you chose to highlight the UK exercised full control over non EU immigration.
You now introduce a new argument to say the EU and EU immigration has effected UK policy on non EU immigration.
Even that does not hold water. Let’s consider:
1. High levels of immigration only started when the E8 joined the EU. Joining the EU required a unanimous vote. So the UK could have stopped them joining. Even when they joined the option excised in the accession treaties to limit access to the Labour market for up to 7 years. The UK unlike all the other countries chose (except Ireland) did not impose these restrictions.
2. The government choose to increase controls on non EU immigration because they decided to make an election pledge they could not keep.
SilverSixer said:
To solve your friend's issue, this would mean you're arguing one of two things: 1 - No immigration controls for anyone. 2 - Swingeing immigration controls for everyone.
And of course, no middle ground is possible...SilverSixer said:
And I thought it wasn't about immigration? Lots of heat being generated by Leave voters around a subject which was apparently nothing to do with the referendum result.
Round and round we go.
Says who? As has been explained on numerous ocassions, for most people it was about many things, some more important than others.Round and round we go.
SilverSixer said:
To solve your friend's issue, this would mean you're arguing one of two things: 1 - No immigration controls for anyone. 2 - Swingeing immigration controls for everyone.
And I thought it wasn't about immigration? Lots of heat being generated by Leave voters around a subject which was apparently nothing to do with the referendum result.
Round and round we go.
I think you're missing the actual subject being discussed here. (the treatment of non EU migrants as a result of EU immigration policy).And I thought it wasn't about immigration? Lots of heat being generated by Leave voters around a subject which was apparently nothing to do with the referendum result.
Round and round we go.
1. There are swingeing immigration controls for non EU migrants.
2. There are no immigration controls for EU migrants.
The two are connected. Far fairer would be to have the same immigration controls for both EU and non EU migrants. As it stands, it could be said that the current immigration policy is discriminatory.
B'stard Child said:
bmw535i said:
Our non EU immigration policies have been changed as a result of EU immigration and EU influence.
I raised that specific issue (with a good example of how wrong it was) as one of my 273 reason to vote leave pre "independance day" - it wasn't discussed and many of the same people here still won't discuss it properly...Mrr T said:
In your mind Is everything to do with the EU?
You said the EU forced the UK to take immigrants from Syria. It did not the EU wanted the UK to take immigrants from the rEU.
So the UK government did exactly the opposite of what the EU wanted but it’s still the EU forcing the UK to do it. That’s a very odd argument. You can argue the BBC and some MP’s forced the government but not the EU.
I see you have now dropped any reference to the immigrants from Calais.
So let’s be clear in both the instances you chose to highlight the UK exercised full control over non EU immigration.
You now introduce a new argument to say the EU and EU immigration has effected UK policy on non EU immigration.
Even that does not hold water. Let’s consider:
1. High levels of immigration only started when the E8 joined the EU. Joining the EU required a unanimous vote. So the UK could have stopped them joining. Even when they joined the option excised in the accession treaties to limit access to the Labour market for up to 7 years. The UK unlike all the other countries chose (except Ireland) did not impose these restrictions.
2. The government choose to increase controls on non EU immigration because they decided to make an election pledge they could not keep.
I haven't dropped or changed anything You said the EU forced the UK to take immigrants from Syria. It did not the EU wanted the UK to take immigrants from the rEU.
So the UK government did exactly the opposite of what the EU wanted but it’s still the EU forcing the UK to do it. That’s a very odd argument. You can argue the BBC and some MP’s forced the government but not the EU.
I see you have now dropped any reference to the immigrants from Calais.
So let’s be clear in both the instances you chose to highlight the UK exercised full control over non EU immigration.
You now introduce a new argument to say the EU and EU immigration has effected UK policy on non EU immigration.
Even that does not hold water. Let’s consider:
1. High levels of immigration only started when the E8 joined the EU. Joining the EU required a unanimous vote. So the UK could have stopped them joining. Even when they joined the option excised in the accession treaties to limit access to the Labour market for up to 7 years. The UK unlike all the other countries chose (except Ireland) did not impose these restrictions.
2. The government choose to increase controls on non EU immigration because they decided to make an election pledge they could not keep.
Why do you think the government couldn't keep their pledge?
SilverSixer said:
B'stard Child said:
bmw535i said:
B'stard Child said:
bmw535i said:
Our non EU immigration policies have been changed as a result of EU immigration and EU influence.
I raised that specific issue (with a good example of how wrong it was) as one of my 273 reason to vote leave pre "independance day" - it wasn't discussed and many of the same people here still won't discuss it properly...Trying to explain to people that if they put words such as 'childcare' or 'help' on their visa applications as reasons for coming to visit, they will be refused, is quite difficult. Also trying to get people from developing countries to provide financial evidence that they will return there is difficult.
There are mutliple spurious reasons the HO give for refusing entry to non EU migrants because they are under pressure to reduce immigration figures as the complete lack of control over EU migrants continues.
My friend tried 3 times to get his wife into the UK - nearly a grand in fees - each time turned down.
In the end he went the resident of EU country first route and a year later they couldn't do a damn thing but what a waste from a whole number of perspectives
And I thought it wasn't about immigration? Lots of heat being generated by Leave voters around a subject which was apparently nothing to do with the referendum result.
Round and round we go.
t at me?I'll have a stab at it but I'll duck out if you can't accept that there is another viewpoint.
Rightly or wrongly the Government recognised that Immigration was a hot topic and made a declaration that it would reduce net migration to 10's of thousands
Now we are in the EU - four freedoms and all that - no chance of restricting movement from EU
So the only migration that they could reduce was non EU - clearly they had some traction in this area but not as much as they hoped because they missed their target by a country mile.
My motivation for voting leave wasn't a reaction to free movement - it was a lack of control v an unrealistic attempt at control to balance the books in one area. Fundamentally it was doomed to failure.
I'd like control on both EU and non EU and a fair policy on acceptance from both routes of migration
You could argue that the Government shouldn't have made the commitment that it couldn't keep - but it just demonstrated to many people that the system was more broken than they thought.
Mrr T said:
B'stard Child said:
bmw535i said:
Our non EU immigration policies have been changed as a result of EU immigration and EU influence.
I raised that specific issue (with a good example of how wrong it was) as one of my 273 reason to vote leave pre "independance day" - it wasn't discussed and many of the same people here still won't discuss it properly...The only thing you were interesting in doing was evaluating my ability to recognise people of an Eastern European origin and you pretty much said I was a liar and my point of view was racist.
So to you I refer you to the response I gave someone earlier - FRO
That is what happens when you shut down a debate - and then you get an answer you don't like and you want to discuss it then......
bmw535i said:
Mrr T said:
In your mind Is everything to do with the EU?
You said the EU forced the UK to take immigrants from Syria. It did not the EU wanted the UK to take immigrants from the rEU.
So the UK government did exactly the opposite of what the EU wanted but it’s still the EU forcing the UK to do it. That’s a very odd argument. You can argue the BBC and some MP’s forced the government but not the EU.
I see you have now dropped any reference to the immigrants from Calais.
So let’s be clear in both the instances you chose to highlight the UK exercised full control over non EU immigration.
You now introduce a new argument to say the EU and EU immigration has effected UK policy on non EU immigration.
Even that does not hold water. Let’s consider:
1. High levels of immigration only started when the E8 joined the EU. Joining the EU required a unanimous vote. So the UK could have stopped them joining. Even when they joined the option excised in the accession treaties to limit access to the Labour market for up to 7 years. The UK unlike all the other countries chose (except Ireland) did not impose these restrictions.
2. The government choose to increase controls on non EU immigration because they decided to make an election pledge they could not keep.
I haven't dropped or changed anything You said the EU forced the UK to take immigrants from Syria. It did not the EU wanted the UK to take immigrants from the rEU.
So the UK government did exactly the opposite of what the EU wanted but it’s still the EU forcing the UK to do it. That’s a very odd argument. You can argue the BBC and some MP’s forced the government but not the EU.
I see you have now dropped any reference to the immigrants from Calais.
So let’s be clear in both the instances you chose to highlight the UK exercised full control over non EU immigration.
You now introduce a new argument to say the EU and EU immigration has effected UK policy on non EU immigration.
Even that does not hold water. Let’s consider:
1. High levels of immigration only started when the E8 joined the EU. Joining the EU required a unanimous vote. So the UK could have stopped them joining. Even when they joined the option excised in the accession treaties to limit access to the Labour market for up to 7 years. The UK unlike all the other countries chose (except Ireland) did not impose these restrictions.
2. The government choose to increase controls on non EU immigration because they decided to make an election pledge they could not keep.
Why do you think the government couldn't keep their pledge?
a) The government wanted to look good. They must have known they could not meet it.
b) The concern about immigration came about because of a surge in immigration following the E8 accession. The UK government could have vetoed the accession or imposed restrictions on access to the labour market. They choose not to.
So if there is concern about immigration and the government cannot keep its pledge it’s the UK government not the EU you should hold to account.
B'stard Child said:
SilverSixer said:
B'stard Child said:
bmw535i said:
B'stard Child said:
bmw535i said:
Our non EU immigration policies have been changed as a result of EU immigration and EU influence.
I raised that specific issue (with a good example of how wrong it was) as one of my 273 reason to vote leave pre "independance day" - it wasn't discussed and many of the same people here still won't discuss it properly...Trying to explain to people that if they put words such as 'childcare' or 'help' on their visa applications as reasons for coming to visit, they will be refused, is quite difficult. Also trying to get people from developing countries to provide financial evidence that they will return there is difficult.
There are mutliple spurious reasons the HO give for refusing entry to non EU migrants because they are under pressure to reduce immigration figures as the complete lack of control over EU migrants continues.
My friend tried 3 times to get his wife into the UK - nearly a grand in fees - each time turned down.
In the end he went the resident of EU country first route and a year later they couldn't do a damn thing but what a waste from a whole number of perspectives
And I thought it wasn't about immigration? Lots of heat being generated by Leave voters around a subject which was apparently nothing to do with the referendum result.
Round and round we go.
t at me?I'll have a stab at it but I'll duck out if you can't accept that there is another viewpoint.
Rightly or wrongly the Government recognised that Immigration was a hot topic and made a declaration that it would reduce net migration to 10's of thousands
Now we are in the EU - four freedoms and all that - no chance of restricting movement from EU
So the only migration that they could reduce was non EU - clearly they had some traction in this area but not as much as they hoped because they missed their target by a country mile.
My motivation for voting leave wasn't a reaction to free movement - it was a lack of control v an unrealistic attempt at control to balance the books in one area. Fundamentally it was doomed to failure.
I'd like control on both EU and non EU and a fair policy on acceptance from both routes of migration
You could argue that the Government shouldn't have made the commitment that it couldn't keep - but it just demonstrated to many people that the system was more broken than they thought.
t at anyone, but I'm sorry if you were offended.Mrr T is right about immigration controls - our government's decision not to use those it could have used is what caused the increases in immigration and the perceived problems that brought, which were then blamed on the EU and never balanced against the benefits they bought.
Anecdotes about friends are all well and good, a friend of mine tried for about 3 years to get his non-EU wife and child in to the country (they're here now at great financial and personal expense), but he doesn't think that was anything to do with the EU and blames the UK government's intransigence and voted Remain. He's right. It was all UK government policies and UK government decisions which lead to his situation, failure to control EU immigration was a UK government failing, not an automatic consequence of EU membership. Now the baby is getting thrown out with the perfectly clean, warm, organic skin kind bubble-bath infused bath water, because the situation was represented to the public so incorrectly and so consistently that it became "the truth about immigration".
sidicks said:
So you'd be in favour of constraining immigration only to those who can contribute / add value. Interesting...
I think most people would, it's just that this simplistic vision of having magic glasses that enable us to hand-pick the good ones is unrealistic.I think once the new concessions about sending people back if they don't find work in 6 months and no benefits for x number of years were proposed, this could have potentially solved it as close as realistically possible
blindswelledrat said:
I think most people would, it's just that this simplistic vision of having magic glasses that enable us to hand-pick the good ones is unrealistic.
I think once the new concessions about sending people back if they don't find work in 6 months and no benefits for x number of years were proposed, this could have potentially solved it as close as realistically possible
Sending people back if they don't find work, huh ? You really believe that would happen ? I think once the new concessions about sending people back if they don't find work in 6 months and no benefits for x number of years were proposed, this could have potentially solved it as close as realistically possible
Mrr T said:
Just follow the points. The pledge came about because:
a) The government wanted to look good. They must have known they could not meet it.
b) The concern about immigration came about because of a surge in immigration following the E8 accession. The UK government could have vetoed the accession or imposed restrictions on access to the labour market. They choose not to.
So if there is concern about immigration and the government cannot keep its pledge it’s the UK government not the EU you should hold to account.
Ok, I'll ask the question again because you haven't answered it.a) The government wanted to look good. They must have known they could not meet it.
b) The concern about immigration came about because of a surge in immigration following the E8 accession. The UK government could have vetoed the accession or imposed restrictions on access to the labour market. They choose not to.
So if there is concern about immigration and the government cannot keep its pledge it’s the UK government not the EU you should hold to account.
Why couldn't they keep the pledge they made? I don't want to know why they made it.
bmw535i said:
Mrr T said:
Just follow the points. The pledge came about because:
a) The government wanted to look good. They must have known they could not meet it.
b) The concern about immigration came about because of a surge in immigration following the E8 accession. The UK government could have vetoed the accession or imposed restrictions on access to the labour market. They choose not to.
So if there is concern about immigration and the government cannot keep its pledge it’s the UK government not the EU you should hold to account.
Ok, I'll ask the question again because you haven't answered it.a) The government wanted to look good. They must have known they could not meet it.
b) The concern about immigration came about because of a surge in immigration following the E8 accession. The UK government could have vetoed the accession or imposed restrictions on access to the labour market. They choose not to.
So if there is concern about immigration and the government cannot keep its pledge it’s the UK government not the EU you should hold to account.
Why couldn't they keep the pledge they made? I don't want to know why they made it.
"The concern about immigration came about because of a surge in immigration following the E8 accession. The UK government could have vetoed the accession or imposed restrictions on access to the labour market. They choose not to."
do you not understand?
Deptford Draylons said:
blindswelledrat said:
I think most people would, it's just that this simplistic vision of having magic glasses that enable us to hand-pick the good ones is unrealistic.
I think once the new concessions about sending people back if they don't find work in 6 months and no benefits for x number of years were proposed, this could have potentially solved it as close as realistically possible
Sending people back if they don't find work, huh ? You really believe that would happen ? I think once the new concessions about sending people back if they don't find work in 6 months and no benefits for x number of years were proposed, this could have potentially solved it as close as realistically possible
Mrr T said:
bmw535i said:
Mrr T said:
Just follow the points. The pledge came about because:
a) The government wanted to look good. They must have known they could not meet it.
b) The concern about immigration came about because of a surge in immigration following the E8 accession. The UK government could have vetoed the accession or imposed restrictions on access to the labour market. They choose not to.
So if there is concern about immigration and the government cannot keep its pledge it’s the UK government not the EU you should hold to account.
Ok, I'll ask the question again because you haven't answered it.a) The government wanted to look good. They must have known they could not meet it.
b) The concern about immigration came about because of a surge in immigration following the E8 accession. The UK government could have vetoed the accession or imposed restrictions on access to the labour market. They choose not to.
So if there is concern about immigration and the government cannot keep its pledge it’s the UK government not the EU you should hold to account.
Why couldn't they keep the pledge they made? I don't want to know why they made it.
"The concern about immigration came about because of a surge in immigration following the E8 accession. The UK government could have vetoed the accession or imposed restrictions on access to the labour market. They choose not to."
do you not understand?
Why couldn't they keep the pledge they made? I don't want to know why they made it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff