Gary Lineker

[Sweep]

I suggested that it is not honest to the basic values of the UK on the grounds that this seems to be predicated on the basis of the UK having no responsibilities to accept ANY immigrants - and that we should do whatever we can to avoid accepting any unless we are almost forced to. You may not have meant it that way but that is how it comes across to me. Apologies if I have misunderstood.

How many do you think we should take and how many are we responsible for taking? Is this number the same? From what I can glean from the news, the U.K. Is taking those Children who have a legal right to reside in the U.K. Are we responsible for more?
If we were outside the EU and therefore not subject to accepting any EU citizen who chose to come here, do you think we would be able to take more? And if so, should we?
In that context, is it more important to take people in need rather than take people from the EU for what are seen as economic benefits for belonging to the EU? Or, as these people are already in Europe and therefore safe, should we not be worrying about them so much?
Just to be clear, I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply asking questions that must be answered by those on both sides of the argument to validate their point of view. I would be interested in your answers.

 

[Raesy92]

Is it racist to suggest that English people are more racist than Scottish people?

I am not suggesting English people are more racist than Scottish people. I am stating that from my experience of what I have seen/heard post Brexit that the feeling in England is very much different to that of Scotland. While also having the displeasure of witnessing a racist incident while on a train journey in England.

I did not say 'This Brexit vote has seemingly given the 'English' the right to spout whatever pish they like'.

 

[Tashyboy]

In my eyes it's not honest. It pretends to be a reasonable argument when in fact it hides behind the fact that the UK is at the edge of Europe - and uses that as a 'reason' for us not having any, or at best minimal, responsibility for refugees or immigrants. When we are in fact a member of the EU with joint ownership of issues, and we are a 'christian' (apparently) country whose reputation is based upon championing the rights of others, and caring for the dispossessed and endangered.

SILH.
The fact that the UK is at the edge of the Europe is irrelevant, we were part of the EU and as such were bound by law to take in so many people claiming political asylum, migrants etc etc. This subject is not about that. It is about CHILD refugees, and not one post including mine states that we should not let any enter the country. What has upset people inc me is that some of the children being let in do not look like children. I have read sweeps post again in which I agreed with and again find nothing to disagree with.
The only thing that I have disagreed with is that your reasonable argument addresses issues that have nothing to do with child migrants entering the UK. Eg UK edge of Europe, Christian country, championing rights of others.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I am not suggesting English people are more racist than Scottish people. I am stating that from my experience of what I have seen/heard post Brexit that the feeling in England is very much different to that of Scotland. While also having the displeasure of witnessing a racist incident while on a train journey in England.

I did not say 'This Brexit vote has seemingly given the 'English' the right to spout whatever pish they like'.

Don't expect an apology or a reply from SR
BTW good posts.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

SILH.
The fact that the UK is at the edge of the Europe is irrelevant, we were part of the EU and as such were bound by law to take in so many people claiming political asylum, migrants etc etc. This subject is not about that. It is about CHILD refugees, and not one post including mine states that we should not let any enter the country. What has upset people inc me is that some of the children being let in do not look like children. I have read sweeps post again in which I agreed with and again find nothing to disagree with.
The only thing that I have disagreed with is that your reasonable argument addresses issues that have nothing to do with child migrants entering the UK. Eg UK edge of Europe, Christian country, championing rights of others.

I wish that this was the case - yet so many make the case against accepting refugees on the grounds of 'first safe country' - and is it not handy that the UK is at the far western edge of Europe with lots of safe countries between the sources of refugees and the UK

And on child refugees - my point is simply that it tells me a fair bit about the mindset of many towards accepting refugees when a huge fuss is made over some child refugees seeming to be a bit older than they claim. It really is a big deal.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

How many do you think we should take and how many are we responsible for taking? Is this number the same? From what I can glean from the news, the U.K. Is taking those Children who have a legal right to reside in the U.K. Are we responsible for more?
If we were outside the EU and therefore not subject to accepting any EU citizen who chose to come here, do you think we would be able to take more? And if so, should we?
In that context, is it more important to take people in need rather than take people from the EU for what are seen as economic benefits for belonging to the EU? Or, as these people are already in Europe and therefore safe, should we not be worrying about them so much?
Just to be clear, I am not saying you are wrong, I am simply asking questions that must be answered by those on both sides of the argument to validate their point of view. I would be interested in your answers.

My views are from the initial stand-point of us having values of being a caring and compassionate society - a society that has always looked to provide a home for the dispossessed and endangered. Holding tight to those values we should start from a position of considering all in need - and working from that point on how many and of what nature of immigrant we can manage to accommodate - and accepting that that would require sacrifices by us all and that we have no greater right to maintaining what we currently have than anyone else in Europe. In contrast the current standpoint of many seems to be a starting point of we keep and protect what we have, and no immigration other than that which we need, and for many that would be none.

 

[Sweep]

I am not suggesting English people are more racist than Scottish people. I am stating that from my experience of what I have seen/heard post Brexit that the feeling in England is very much different to that of Scotland. While also having the displeasure of witnessing a racist incident while on a train journey in England.

I did not say 'This Brexit vote has seemingly given the 'English' the right to spout whatever pish they like'.

Why would he expect an apology from Socket Rocket? It was me that asked if it was racist to suggest the English were more racist than the Scots.
My comment was tongue in cheek to illustrate how daft the world has become.
For the record, I live in England 24/7/365 and I haven't seen a single incident of racism since the referendum. There has undoubtedly been more conversations on immigration but as this seemed to be central to the debate I suppose that would be expected. However, none of these have been racist and I do think this narrative suggesting Brexit has given a voice to racists nicely fits the agenda of those who refuse to accept the result - unless you think that discussing immigration is racist in itself.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Why would he expect an apology from Socket Rocket? It was me that asked if it was racist to suggest the English were more racist than the Scots.
My comment was tongue in cheek to illustrate how daft the world has become.
For the record, I live in England 24/7/365 and I haven't seen a single incident of racism since the referendum. There has undoubtedly been more conversations on immigration but as this seemed to be central to the debate I suppose that would be expected. However, none of these have been racist and I do think this narrative suggesting Brexit has given a voice to racists nicely fits the agenda of those who refuse to accept the result - unless you think that discussing immigration is racist in itself.

Sorry I should have put a comma after apology.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Why would he expect an apology from Socket Rocket? It was me that asked if it was racist to suggest the English were more racist than the Scots.
My comment was tongue in cheek to illustrate how daft the world has become.
For the record, I live in England 24/7/365 and I haven't seen a single incident of racism since the referendum. There has undoubtedly been more conversations on immigration but as this seemed to be central to the debate I suppose that would be expected. However, none of these have been racist and I do think this narrative suggesting Brexit has given a voice to racists nicely fits the agenda of those who refuse to accept the result - unless you think that discussing immigration is racist in itself.

I live in Scotland and sadly I have heard quite a few [via the telephone] from my English relatives.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I live in Scotland and sadly I have heard quite a few [via the telephone] from my English relatives.

Just as a wee bit balance of @DfT - I have heard Scots (in Scotland) talk about the immigrant community in Scotland in ways that would be deemed unacceptable in England. Not necessarily in a nasty or pejorative way - but in a way which nonetheless would be deemed unacceptable. Scots have to be a little bit careful.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

We could play table tennis with the "who makes more racist comments, the English or Scots". I live not far from the border and have heard many Scots make racist comments about the English, not uncommon at all. Go to a rugby match at Murrayfield, great occasion by the way, and fill your boots with anti English comments. Does that mean I view all Scots as racist? No. I'm big enough and old enough to see past that. Making these sorts of comments is cheap points scoring. Move on and get back to proper discussion.

 

[Sweep]

My views are from the initial stand-point of us having values of being a caring and compassionate society - a society that has always looked to provide a home for the dispossessed and endangered. Holding tight to those values we should start from a position of considering all in need - and working from that point on how many and of what nature of immigrant we can manage to accommodate - and accepting that that would require sacrifices by us all and that we have no greater right to maintaining what we currently have than anyone else in Europe. In contrast the current standpoint of many seems to be a starting point of we keep and protect what we have, and no immigration other than that which we need, and for many that would be none.

That is all very laudable but with respect you haven't answered any of my questions. If you cannot even put a number on this, how can the UK even begin to form a plan? From your reply I assume you believe we should ignore our responsibilities and take all who are dispossessed and endangered. But how many exactly is this and how do we determine who is dispossessed and endangered? Should we ditch our deal with the EU to make way for the endangered and dispossessed? If the UK was the first port of call for refugees and migrants, do you think the rest of Europe would be clamouring to take them off our hands?
When you talk of sacrifices, what would you be prepared to sacrifice? Are we talking about more houses in your area, less choice of school places for your kids, or no school for your kids? Maybe they want to build on your golf course. Would you be OK if it places your job under threat, your car, your house? I suspect we all have different levels we would be prepared to accept but how do we all agree? I don't think we should be too critical of people not wanting to lose the life they and their parents have worked hard for.

I suspect this is an idealism v practicality argument. In an ideal world we would all like to take every person who wants to come here, but it's simply not practical.
Lets start with something both sides can surely agree on. Whether you believe in unfettered immigration or no immigration at all, we all have to accept that we can only go at the pace we can cope with. We all know about the arguments on roads, hospitals, schools, doctors, housing, sewers, power, welfare etc. There is no point bringing unlimited numbers into the UK if we can't offer these people a decent life. That is why they want to come here. To be able to cope we have to know what numbers we are talking about. In many parts of the UK we can hardly cope now. It is inevitable that we and every other country has to set numbers. Alternatively we can move the Calais camp to Surrey but I don't think this is the idea.

Its all well and good taking the idealistic, moral high ground as the left often does, but someone has to work out how to make it work and how to pay for it. Someone has to work out the practicalities.

I would have to add that going off a number of posts on here you would be forgiven for thinking that the UK had done nothing for refugees, migrants or economic immigration, when in actual fact the opposite is true.

Again, I have to ask, as these people are already in France, why are they so desperate to come to the UK? What do we offer them that France doesn't? Why are they not requesting EU citizenship in France and then just walking into the UK? There must be a reason. Genuine questions.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

That is all very laudable but with respect you haven't answered any of my questions. If you cannot even put a number on this, how can the UK even begin to form a plan? From your reply I assume you believe we should ignore our responsibilities and take all who are dispossessed and endangered. But how many exactly is this and how do we determine who is dispossessed and endangered? Should we ditch our deal with the EU to make way for the endangered and dispossessed? If the UK was the first port of call for refugees and migrants, do you think the rest of Europe would be clamouring to take them off our hands?
When you talk of sacrifices, what would you be prepared to sacrifice? Are we talking about more houses in your area, less choice of school places for your kids, or no school for your kids? Maybe they want to build on your golf course. Would you be OK if it places your job under threat, your car, your house? I suspect we all have different levels we would be prepared to accept but how do we all agree? I don't think we should be too critical of people not wanting to lose the life they and their parents have worked hard for.

I suspect this is an idealism v practicality argument. In an ideal world we would all like to take every person who wants to come here, but it's simply not practical.
Lets start with something both sides can surely agree on. Whether you believe in unfettered immigration or no immigration at all, we all have to accept that we can only go at the pace we can cope with. We all know about the arguments on roads, hospitals, schools, doctors, housing, sewers, power, welfare etc. There is no point bringing unlimited numbers into the UK if we can't offer these people a decent life. That is why they want to come here. To be able to cope we have to know what numbers we are talking about. In many parts of the UK we can hardly cope now. It is inevitable that we and every other country has to set numbers. Alternatively we can move the Calais camp to Surrey but I don't think this is the idea.

Its all well and good taking the idealistic, moral high ground as the left often does, but someone has to work out how to make it work and how to pay for it. Someone has to work out the practicalities.

I would have to add that going off a number of posts on here you would be forgiven for thinking that the UK had done nothing for refugees, migrants or economic immigration, when in actual fact the opposite is true.

Again, I have to ask, as these people are already in France, why are they so desperate to come to the UK? What do we offer them that France doesn't? Why are they not requesting EU citizenship in France and then just walking into the UK? There must be a reason. Genuine questions.

But why are you bothered, they want to come here because - they want to come here. They like the sound of the UK - be proud.

You see my point is that I don't start from the point of questioning why they want to come here. I would accept that they want to come here and assuming that their background merits asking us - and if we can accommodate them - why not? Of course there has to be limits and criteria - but the starting point is very different.

As far as sacrifices. I simply ask why it is that we should not be expected to make any sacrifices - as others across Europe currently are. And that could be through us paying more tax to fund public spending or scrapping projects such as Trident replacement. Are we in some way special?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Not really sure the question, why so many want to come to the UK? is valid, more don't, if we believe the number of refugees leaving the ME is correct, why do some Brits want to live in Spain or Portugal and bypass France or USA or Australia? Maybe it's the language or quality of life or they have family here.

 

[Raesy92]

That is all very laudable but with respect you haven't answered any of my questions. If you cannot even put a number on this, how can the UK even begin to form a plan? From your reply I assume you believe we should ignore our responsibilities and take all who are dispossessed and endangered. But how many exactly is this and how do we determine who is dispossessed and endangered? Should we ditch our deal with the EU to make way for the endangered and dispossessed? If the UK was the first port of call for refugees and migrants, do you think the rest of Europe would be clamouring to take them off our hands?
When you talk of sacrifices, what would you be prepared to sacrifice? Are we talking about more houses in your area, less choice of school places for your kids, or no school for your kids? Maybe they want to build on your golf course. Would you be OK if it places your job under threat, your car, your house? I suspect we all have different levels we would be prepared to accept but how do we all agree? I don't think we should be too critical of people not wanting to lose the life they and their parents have worked hard for.

I suspect this is an idealism v practicality argument. In an ideal world we would all like to take every person who wants to come here, but it's simply not practical.
Lets start with something both sides can surely agree on. Whether you believe in unfettered immigration or no immigration at all, we all have to accept that we can only go at the pace we can cope with. We all know about the arguments on roads, hospitals, schools, doctors, housing, sewers, power, welfare etc. There is no point bringing unlimited numbers into the UK if we can't offer these people a decent life. That is why they want to come here. To be able to cope we have to know what numbers we are talking about. In many parts of the UK we can hardly cope now. It is inevitable that we and every other country has to set numbers. Alternatively we can move the Calais camp to Surrey but I don't think this is the idea.

Its all well and good taking the idealistic, moral high ground as the left often does, but someone has to work out how to make it work and how to pay for it. Someone has to work out the practicalities.

I would have to add that going off a number of posts on here you would be forgiven for thinking that the UK had done nothing for refugees, migrants or economic immigration, when in actual fact the opposite is true.

Again, I have to ask, as these people are already in France, why are they so desperate to come to the UK? What do we offer them that France doesn't? Why are they not requesting EU citizenship in France and then just walking into the UK? There must be a reason. Genuine questions.

If you look at the numbers of refugees settled from Syria, it is simply not true that they all want to come to the UK. I know this is not what you are saying but many seem to think so.

I think it should be our, and every other country that has the resources to do so's, duty to take their fair share. When looking at the settlement figures I don't believe the UK is doing enough to help. I keep hearing people say 'Oh they all want to com to Britain to take advantage of the benefit system, healthcare etc ..' but the UK have only taken a tiny proportion of refugee's compared to some, even much smaller, countries than ourselves. If figures are to be believed there are 4.5million Syrian refugee's in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. Yet outside of Sweden and Germany, the other 26 EU countries (inc. us) have taken just 31,000 (which has proabbly risen now to be fair).

 

[Sweep]

I wish that this was the case - yet so many make the case against accepting refugees on the grounds of 'first safe country' - and is it not handy that the UK is at the far western edge of Europe with lots of safe countries between the sources of refugees and the UK

And on child refugees - my point is simply that it tells me a fair bit about the mindset of many towards accepting refugees when a huge fuss is made over some child refugees seeming to be a bit older than they claim. It really is a big deal.

It would seem sensible to accept that first safe country is a definition of a refugee. After that they become migrants. This does not absolve us from responsibility, moral or otherwise, but the language is more accurate.
The point about children is that the UK has agreed to take some unaccompanied children. If they are not children then the system is being abused. People naturally don't like being conned when they are trying to help.

 

[Sweep]

If you look at the numbers of refugees settled from Syria, it is simply not true that they all want to come to the UK. I know this is not what you are saying but many seem to think so.

I think it should be our, and every other country that has the resources to do so's, duty to take their fair share. When looking at the settlement figures I don't believe the UK is doing enough to help. I keep hearing people say 'Oh they all want to com to Britain to take advantage of the benefit system, healthcare etc ..' but the UK have only taken a tiny proportion of refugee's compared to some, even much smaller, countries than ourselves. If figures are to be believed there are 4.5million Syrian refugee's in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. Yet outside of Sweden and Germany, the other 26 EU countries (inc. us) have taken just 31,000 (which has proabbly risen now to be fair).

I don't disagree with any of this post. I am sure many Syrian refugees have sought refuge in local countries with the intention of returning once the war is over.
I think part of the problem is that many in Calais are not casualties of the Syrian war and are in fact economic migrants.

 

[Sweep]

But why are you bothered, they want to come here because - they want to come here. They like the sound of the UK - be proud.

You see my point is that I don't start from the point of questioning why they want to come here. I would accept that they want to come here and assuming that their background merits asking us - and if we can accommodate them - why not? Of course there has to be limits and criteria - but the starting point is very different.

As far as sacrifices. I simply ask why it is that we should not be expected to make any sacrifices - as others across Europe currently are. And that could be through us paying more tax to fund public spending or scrapping projects such as Trident replacement. Are we in some way special?

I genuinely don't know and seemingly neither do you, why they are prepared to live in the Calais camp and try to stow away in vehicles or walk through the tunnel in the vain hope that can live in Britain. These people are already in France and have travelled through rich European countries to get to our border. Of course I am bothered why because this is absolutely central to the issue. If you are bothered about their welfare you would be bothered too. Are we a softer touch than France? Is our benefit system more generous? Do we grant EU citizenship more easily? If we can't even answer this basic question, how on earth do we begin to solve the problem?
The truth is it is just another example of how the EU has utterly failed in anything important. This is exactly it's reason for being and it failed to set an agreement that in this kind of crisis everyone takes their share and provides the same welfare. This is the end result.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we don't make any sacrifices. The central issue on the EU ref was the sacrifices we have already made. Remember "we want our country back"? But even you can't say what you would be prepared to sacrifice. The sad truth is in private most people would sacrifice nothing, but in public claim the moral high ground and sod the practicalities. Gary Linekar and Lily Allen being fine examples. And just like that, we are back on topic 😀

 

[SocketRocket]

Don't expect an apology or a reply from SR
BTW good posts.

You stupid little man.

 

[SocketRocket]

Yes because I just said there should be no form of control at all ...

I was speaking of the refugee's that have came in that everyone is having an uproar over because they look over the age of 18! I see the rest of the post you have conveniently ignored.

The government could have tackled immigration from those outside the EU before Brexit and didn't so what is going to make that change now?

If you think there should be no form of immigration control then can you explain how the problems I posted would be acceptable.

You are rather alarmist and prone to exaggeration. To suggest that 'everyone is having an uproar' is untrue. I am not aware what I have ignored from your previous post but if you would enlighten me I am sure I could answer it. And, Brexit has not taken place yet.