Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Good morning Mr Smith, Can I have a Haddock and Chips please.
Certainly Mr James, Salt and Vinegar ?

Yes please.

That will be £7.50 for the fish and chips and £10 for me allowing you to buy it from me.

But my next door neighbour doesnt pay you £10

Ah! Thats because he's not in the fish and chip club. Do you want to stay in it?

Nah! Think I'll leave if thats OK.

Think we might all have to develop a liking for scampi/langoustine/lobster and chips once we leave - as project fear suggests that (especially under WTO rules) tariffs on such seafood will clobber our exports to Spain and other key markets...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

OK, i will answer your question seeing youre asking it.
You keep using undertones in your posts that suggest current thinking on immigration by Conservatives is a step on the ladder in repeating the geneside used by Germany, Russia and China in the past. I think that is a gross exaggeration and not worth of serious consideration.

What's the problem with a points based immigration system anyway? Its not used to stop immigration but rather to ensure the country welcomes those that it needs, whoever they may be and in what ever numbers are necessary. It seems logical and practical so what exactly is the problem.

Would you prefer an open door system with no control over numbers that allows anyone who wishes to live in the UK the right to do so and if so please explain what numbers of people we could expect and how we would manage such numbers.

You know fine well that freedom of movement within the EU has constraints - and that the UK could easily have been stricter around rEU nationals not in work.

Union residents are given the right to enter any member state for up to three months with a valid passport or identity card.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#European_Union

After three months, everything changes. EU nationals can stay in the host state for the next five years only if they are economically active (as a ‘worker’, self-employed person or a temporary service provider) or they can provide for themselves (as a person of independent means or a student).

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/myth-busting-free-movement/

Besides - as we all know - only about 20% of our immigration is from the rEU - with 80% from non-EU countries (and we have always been able to control that as we would like).

BTW - I should perhaps caveat 'we all know...' - all, that is, except Johnson it would appear who told Rachel Burden on R5Live that he thought migration from the rEU was about 50% of the total (is it worse that he didn't know the split or that he tried to imply a different split)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-gets-eu-immigration-20888661

though that misunderstanding was rather lost amongst the rest of the stuff Johnson stated in the interview - which should perhaps be under either the Words of Wisdom of Boris Johnson or General Election 2019 threads

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/15/boris-johnson-inaccurate-claims-in-interviews

 

[woody69]

OK, i will answer your question seeing youre asking it.
You keep using undertones in your posts that suggest current thinking on immigration by Conservatives is a step on the ladder in repeating the geneside used by Germany, Russia and China in the past. I think that is a gross exaggeration and not worth of serious consideration.

What's the problem with a points based immigration system anyway? Its not used to stop immigration but rather to ensure the country welcomes those that it needs, whoever they may be and in what ever numbers are necessary. It seems logical and practical so what exactly is the problem.

Would you prefer an open door system with no control over numbers that allows anyone who wishes to live in the UK the right to do so and if so please explain what numbers of people we could expect and how we would manage such numbers.

There is no one I’d trust, and certainly no politically motivated body, to determine which skills we need, and which people have them, and which people who we deem to have them also have all the other qualities we may also deem to be necessary to become a valuable member of society. And I also don’t trust any politicians to tell me what it means to be a valuable member of society, because first they haven’t describe in detail what sort of society they are aiming for.

To put it bluntly, I’d rather have a million nice, honest, friendly, dependable people with a strong social conscience who haven’t yet had the chance to develop vocational skills, who want to come here to improve their lives, than any number of people selected purely on the grounds of their job titles, professional and educational qualifications and bank balances.

There’s a lot more to it than this, obviously. Like the fact that if only qualified people come here, our already-resident qualified people will be more tempted to move away, for many observable and familiar reasons.

Anyway, the most valuable members of society are often not qualified people. I thoroughly dislike the hierarchical, judgmental and exclusive approach to choosing who we want to live near us.

But if we are really so concerned about population levels, why are we doing absolutely nothing at all to reduce the birth rate among people already here? No programmes of publicity about the ideal sustainable population (because no one has a clue what it is or whether such a thing exists, making the immigration limit a nonsense) , no appeals or attempts of any kind to reduce consumption, no serious efforts to manage population movement within the UK, nothing at all about population. It’s only about immigration.

So until someone can explain what our optimum population level is and why, (is it more or less than the current population would be a start) I can’t take the selective admissions idea seriously. It is just a knee-jerk response to blame immigration for all sorts of ill-defined and poorly understood problems, many of which may not be problems anyway, but just the natural product of living in a highly commercialised society of the sort that vocationally selective policies may just accelerate.

I don’t accept that simple common sense will give us adequate answers to this major moral, social and economic conundrum.

 

[drdel]

There is no one I’d trust, and certainly no politically motivated body, to determine which skills we need, and which people have them, and which people who we deem to have them also have all the other qualities we may also deem to be necessary to become a valuable member of society. And I also don’t trust any politicians to tell me what it means to be a valuable member of society, because first they haven’t describe in detail what sort of society they are aiming for.

To put it bluntly, I’d rather have a million nice, honest, friendly, dependable people with a strong social conscience who haven’t yet had the chance to develop vocational skills, who want to come here to improve their lives, than any number of people selected purely on the grounds of their job titles, professional and educational qualifications and bank balances.

There’s a lot more to it than this, obviously. Like the fact that if only qualified people come here, our already-resident qualified people will be more tempted to move away, for many observable and familiar reasons.

Anyway, the most valuable members of society are often not qualified people. I thoroughly dislike the hierarchical, judgmental and exclusive approach to choosing who we want to live near us.

But if we are really so concerned about population levels, why are we doing absolutely nothing at all to reduce the birth rate among people already here? No programmes of publicity about the ideal sustainable population (because no one has a clue what it is or whether such a thing exists, making the immigration limit a nonsense) , no appeals or attempts of any kind to reduce consumption, no serious efforts to manage population movement within the UK, nothing at all about population. It’s only about immigration.

So until someone can explain what our optimum population level is and why, (is it more or less than the current population would be a start) I can’t take the selective admissions idea seriously. It is just a knee-jerk response to blame immigration for all sorts of ill-defined and poorly understood problems, many of which may not be problems anyway, but just the natural product of living in a highly commercialised society of the sort that vocationally selective policies may just accelerate.

I don’t accept that simple common sense will give us adequate answers to this major moral, social and economic conundrum.

Birth rate is highest in the Lower Social Economic group !!

 

[harpo_72]

Birth rate is highest in the Lower Social Economic group !!

Time is a beautiful thing ..

But seriously we still have a few factors that address immigration, but we have not stopped the illegals or how we stop those who have committed serious offences in their own countries ?
And I still don't see how those are addressed by leaving the EU. So my point is why even bring it up as part of the discussion ?
I am also of the view, and forgive me for this, that those who come over here and work and pay their taxes are not an issue .. in fact I think we have a problem more with people who don't pay their taxes and who won't work, and is that an EU problem?

 

[robinthehood]

https://newsthump.com/2019/11/18/ch...&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

 

[drdel]

https://newsthump.com/2019/11/18/ch...&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

Apples v Pears...

 

[patricks148]

I think you will find its not easy foe people outside the EU to come and live in the UK.

but far easier than it was before thet axed the 2000 UK border force officers

 

[woody69]

Apples v Pears...

Also, satire.

 

[woody69]

Birth rate is highest in the Lower Social Economic group !!

And?

 

[SocketRocket]

You know fine well that freedom of movement within the EU has constraints - and that the UK could easily have been stricter around rEU nationals not in work.

Union residents are given the right to enter any member state for up to three months with a valid passport or identity card.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#European_Union

After three months, everything changes. EU nationals can stay in the host state for the next five years only if they are economically active (as a ‘worker’, self-employed person or a temporary service provider) or they can provide for themselves (as a person of independent means or a student).

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/myth-busting-free-movement/

Besides - as we all know - only about 20% of our immigration is from the rEU - with 80% from non-EI countries (and we have always been able to control that as we would like).

BTW - I should perhaps caveat 'we all know...' - all, that is, except Johnson it would appear who told Rachel Burden on R5Live that he thought migration from the rEU was about 50% of the total (is it worse that he didn't know the split or tried to imply a different split)

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-gets-eu-immigration-20888661

though that misunderstanding was rather lost amongst the rest of the stuff Johnson stated in the interview - which should perhaps be under either the Words of Wisdom of Boris Johnson or General Election 2019 threads

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/15/boris-johnson-inaccurate-claims-in-interviews

You seem to have gone off subject, I'm not discussing Boris Johnson or Rachel Burden. I will ask again, do you approve of an open door immigration system that has no control over who comes to the UK to live.

 

[SocketRocket]

but far easier than it was before thet axed the 2000 UK border force officers

Its not easy or open borders by any means. Do you agree or not.

 

[robinthehood]

Its not easy or open borders by any means. Do you agree or not.

net migration from the EU is at its lowest level in a decade, while Net from outside is a its highest.

Last year,200 000 non EU migrants... vs 50 000 EU. your just replacing EU with non EU.

Im sure there is a point to it all, somewhere.

 

[SocketRocket]

net migration from the EU is at its lowest level in a decade, while Net from outside is a its highest.

Last year,200 000 non EU migrants... vs 50 000 EU. your just replacing EU with non EU.

Im sure there is a point to it all, somewhere.

I am not discussing EU immigration but immigration period.
People here keep skirting the answer so I'll ask again. What's wrong with a points based immigration system verses an open door policy?

 

[robinthehood]

I am not discussing EU immigration but immigration period.
People here keep skirting the answer so I'll ask again. What's wrong with a points based immigration system verses an open door policy?

Me neither... im pointing out that NON EU migration, you know the points based stuff.... Is at an all time high.

Your goal is clearly to reduce migration, but your not doing that, not even close.
But you have reduced EU migration, so well done there.

 

[drdel]

I am not discussing EU immigration but immigration period.
People here keep skirting the answer so I'll ask again. What's wrong with a points based immigration system verses an open door policy?

Nothing. All sensible countries control immigration. I would ask which countries outside EU do not have immigration control?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You seem to have gone off subject, I'm not discussing Boris Johnson or Rachel Burden. I will ask again, do you approve of an open door immigration system that has no control over who comes to the UK to live.

We already have control. I am comfortable with the current system.

I think it valid and very relevant to bring up Johnson's apparent lack of understanding of the level of immigration from the rEU compared with the rWorld - because his utterances and beliefs in respect of immigration will be determining immigration policy of a Johnson-led government.

Do you not think it somewhat strange that Johnson does not appear to know the split between rEU and rWorld immigration to the UK.

 

[Foxholer]

net migration from the EU is at its lowest level in a decade, while Net from outside is a its highest.
..

As would be expected 2 years after the referendum!

...
Last year,200 000 non EU migrants... vs 50 000 EU. your just replacing EU with non EU.
..

Those non-EU ones were through UK's choice - aka desired skills - and 'controlled'. EU ones were through FOM, so who knows what skills were involved - and uncontrolled!

 

[SocketRocket]

Me neither... im pointing out that NON EU migration, you know the points based stuff.... Is at an all time high.

Your goal is clearly to reduce migration, but your not doing that, not even close.
But you have reduced EU migration, so well done there.

I dont have a goal only a desire as I have no control over immigration.
My desire is that we control immigration not simply reduce it. It seems logical that we encourage people we need in our country and reduce people we don't need. Its like a business, there will be a requirement to employ those with the skills you need to fill vacancies. No company would say that anyone will be given a job irrespective of job vacancies or skills required
There will be a certain amount of humane immigration where the country decides to help a number of unfortunate people but that would be part of your quotas

 

[robinthehood]

As would be expected 2 years after the referendum!

Those non-EU ones were through UK's choice - aka desired skills - and 'controlled'. EU ones were through FOM, so who knows what skills were involved - and uncontrolled!

Most are students.