• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

ShipOfGoldblum said:
Parliament, faced by the gentle wrath of so many obviously nice people, backed down. There will be a “people’s consultation” at the end of July. Any UK citizen over 16, including those abroad, will be allowed to vote. The options will be no deal, revoke article 50, accept May’s white paper, or negotiate to stay in the single market via EEA/EFTA. STV will apply, and if May’s plan wins, but she can’t get a deal based on her white paper, the option coming second will be adopted.

Facebook has agreed to kill any vote-related memes that are propagated by bot farms, and the DMGT has ordered Dacre to step down early. Aaron Banks’ cash has been forfeited under the proceeds of crime act. The special sitting of the House happened after Anna Soubry’s speech, but the Mexico-Korea match was on while they voted, and members were so moved by the late goal that an amendment was passed requesting that Son’s military service be spent as a goodwill ambassador to the UK.

So it was all quite a result, really.
Click to expand...

The government need you.

As the Brexit reality looms you and your people represent an escape route...


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
Right. And I’d say EU migrants tend to be better educated, English speaking, more culturally aligned than ROW. Going to the doctors seeing people in headscarf’s who can’t speak English, I think, why do people prefer these kinds of immigrants to French etc???

Doesn’t make sense. [emoji6]
Click to expand...

The thing that makes no sense is you implying, in support of your 'reverse-brexit-at-all-costs' stance, that immigration is significantly weighted in the RoW category when you know full well that this is a situation that has only emerged since the referendum.
 
Parklaner81 said:
The thing that makes no sense is you implying, in support of your 'reverse-brexit-at-all-costs' stance, that immigration is significantly weighted in the RoW category when you know full well that this is a situation that has only emerged since the referendum.
Click to expand...

Up to the referendum the EU/RoW split was damn near 50/50.

However, that was 50% people who could just turn up, take welfare and have no chance of being kicked out, and 50% people who had to jump through more hoops than a crufts champion to be able to stay.

Immigration has never been fair, and I think its rather disgusting the amount of people who protect EU immigration at the expense of RoW.

A single, streamlined policy, that treats everyone the same, is the only fair and sane solution.
 
Parklaner81 said:
The thing that makes no sense is you implying, in support of your 'reverse-brexit-at-all-costs' stance, that immigration is significantly weighted in the RoW category when you know full well that this is a situation that has only emerged since the referendum.
Click to expand...

It’s circa 50-50 with a tiny amount more ROW. Not sure why your obsessed by that? Point is, immigration is a big one for a lot of people, but the EU only represents half of the immigrants. And not beating around the bush, they tend to
Be the more ‘palatable’ immigrants - educated, English speaking, European.

Add to that that we need immigration for the health service to run, for farmers to pick fruit, for the worst building jobs no one wants to do, for our offices and homes to be cleaned...what’s the beef with EU migrant workers? Would we prefer they came from Africa instead, where it’s not easy to get back to after the fruit season is finished etc?

The uk being affluent and needing migrant workers is not a bad thing. It’s a sign of our success.

That Brexit and the EU is associated with migration, like exiting the EU will sort immigration...its proper naive.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Up to the referendum the EU/RoW split was damn near 50/50.

However, that was 50% people who could just turn up, take welfare and have no chance of being kicked out, and 50% people who had to jump through more hoops than a crufts champion to be able to stay.

Immigration has never been fair, and I think its rather disgusting the amount of people who protect EU immigration at the expense of RoW.

A single, streamlined policy, that treats everyone the same, is the only fair and sane solution.
Click to expand...

Even if it means screwing our economy in the process? Losing jobs, investment, downgrading our schools and hospitals?

Do we want more Africans, Indians and ROW than our neighbouring cousins?

None of it makes sense to me. Sure kick out people who don’t work who come to the uk to claim welfare, but more come here to do valuable jobs.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Parklaner81 said:
Not obsessed at all...

It was just that, to fit your argument, you seemed to be suggesting something quite different previously?
Click to expand...

I think you imagined it?

I know people who think (and I was a little shocked to hear) things like, I don’t like going to areas where white faces are in a minority.

Now maybe I’m too liberal, and actually that’s a fair thing to say in an indigenous European country. Certainly better to say it than think it only and leave it simmering.

But if that’s the case, EU migrants should be more welcome. It’s a very thorny subject but if we’re to address peoples concerns - they have to be out in the open.

One thing is for sure, exiting the EU will not solve people’s immigration concerns. It may even exacerbate them.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
Even if it means screwing our economy in the process? Losing jobs, investment, downgrading our schools and hospitals?

Do we want more Africans, Indians and ROW than our neighbouring cousins?

None of it makes sense to me. Sure kick out people who don’t work who come to the uk to claim welfare, but more come here to do valuable jobs.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

I am not understanding your argument at all. You don't want more Africans/Indians here. but would prefer more Latvians/Lithuanians? Why do you have a preference at all, what does it matter? You think we have more in common with people from former Soviet states than people from Commonwealth countries? I don't get what you're saying.

If I have one gripe with the EU, it's that the immigration process is unfair -- my wife is an immigrant from outside of the EU, so I have some first-hand experience. The unfairness of free-movement for some but 'lots of hoops' for the spouses/dependents of British citizens annoys me, but still isn't enough to have made me vote Leave. But disingenuous arguments against this unfairness don't do the Remain side any favours.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Up to the referendum the EU/RoW split was damn near 50/50.

However, that was 50% people who could just turn up, take welfare and have no chance of being kicked out, and 50% people who had to jump through more hoops than a crufts champion to be able to stay.

Immigration has never been fair, and I think its rather disgusting the amount of people who protect EU immigration at the expense of RoW.

A single, streamlined policy, that treats everyone the same, is the only fair and sane solution.
Click to expand...

That sir is a bang on post.
 
the dza said:
I am not understanding your argument at all. You don't want more Africans/Indians here. but would prefer more Latvians/Lithuanians? Why do you have a preference at all, what does it matter? You think we have more in common with people from former Soviet states than people from Commonwealth countries? I don't get what you're saying.

If I have one gripe with the EU, it's that the immigration process is unfair -- my wife is an immigrant from outside of the EU, so I have some first-hand experience. The unfairness of free-movement for some but 'lots of hoops' for the spouses/dependents of British citizens annoys me, but still isn't enough to have made me vote Leave. But disingenuous arguments against this unfairness don't do the Remain side any favours.
Click to expand...

If Brexits allure is say 70% about immigration, then its worth exploring in more detail. I just had someone say to me yesterday that they don’t like immigrants having the same status as natives. This is the heart of the Brexit vote whether we like it or not.

What you outline with hoops to jump thru wouldn’t change for a spouse post Brexit, it would just apply to EU nationals too. Not that they will want to come to the uk to work as the pound weakens and jobs slow down.

Personally I don’t have a view on immigrants, other than I like some of them. They tend to work hard and bring culture and diversity. But for Brexit voters immigrants and free movement are a liberty too far. I just find it ironic. For example post vote there were macarons says Brexit would lead to less Muslims (who are generally ROW rather than EU) and that half our immigration has no relationship to the EU. People sold Brexit on immigration control could be let down.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
People sold Brexit on immigration control could be let down.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. The players in the Leave campaign don't give a sh1t about immigration imo, but they use it to stir up enough voters to go and vote leave -- when their real agenda is de-regulation. That's why that clique are more than happy with a "no-deal" scenario. Hopefully, we get a Labour government to counter that agenda.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
A single, streamlined policy, that treats everyone the same, is the only fair and sane solution.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Immigration policy should be based on some very simple, basic principles:

1) International commitments to asylum seekers distributed from 'first safe countries'
2) First priority to spouses and families. No nationality bias. Love and society prioritised over the economy
3) A quota for economic migration - set at a level defined by birth and death rates, with the purpose of keeping population at zero net growth or small decrease
4) Economic migrant visas (up to the quota) for highly-skilled workers based on the current tier 2 system. No nationality bias
5) University students outside the quotas
 
Gutter Boy said:
3) A quota for economic migration - set at a level defined by birth and death rates, with the purpose of keeping population at zero net growth or small decrease
Click to expand...

That sounds nice and straightforward and simple. But the baby boom makes it much more complicated than that. Keeping the total population at zero net growth would mean a drastic decline in the working age population, and would make the demographic time-bomb of health and care for the baby boom generation all the more terrifying.

Keeping the working-age population stable might just allow us to manage that time-bomb. Maybe. We'd have to give up on the idea of inheritance, of course, and means-test the brick out of the elderly. Personally, I'd rather carry on chasing net growth and *possibly* explore "guest worker" concepts, or at least have a bit more conditionality on social protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back