The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Awol]

1 minute ago, PompeyVillan said:

It could cause the opposite of what the Waycists want.

So we give everyone a score based on what skills, qualifications, what age they are etc?

Bingo, all of a sudden a huge amount of Syrian refugees are granted entry to the UK. We'll be flooded with Syrian and Iraqi doctors nurses, teachers, etc.

(And if nobody decides to pick the sprouts and pack the mushrooms when the Poles are gone... we'll continue to get the unskilled labour too).

 

I don't see a problem with that at all. The issue is about democratic control and accountability to the people. That's Brexit. 

[LondonLax]

15 minutes ago, Awol said:

I reckon we'll manage without the camps, but does your work visa system function properly or not? Is economic growth held back for want of qualified people? Genuine question. 

As usual that would depend on who you ask. 

 

Quote

 

Migration pushing Australia to 'third-world style population growth rate'

Australia’s “breakneck” population growth is flooding major cities and putting huge pressure on house prices, the country’s former foreign minister says.

Australia’s population ticked over to 24 million overnight, on the back of record net overseas migration in the year to July 2015.

“We’ve got a third-world style population growth rate and I think the Australian people need to be alerted to this,” Bob Carr told reporters in Sydney on Tuesday

“There’s a case for pegging immigration back by easily a third, perhaps 50%. We are going for breakneck population growth and it’s all about supply and demand.

Carr, who was also premier of New South Wales from 1995 to 2005, said Australia’s growth rate outstripped Indonesia’s and was the highest of any developed country.

Carr said a “hugely over-ambitious” approach to migration devised by Canberra bureaucrats was putting astonishing pressure on the housing market and causing crippling congestion.

“No matter how much governments spend on infrastructure, at this level of population growth, it’s always never enough,” he said.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/16/migration-pushing-australia-to-third-world-style-population-growth-rate

 

[Awol]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I haven't pretended it was 'basically about racism'. It's an element, and a strong element of the immigration arguments, but there's more to it than that. Hence the long comments about all the various things that got us to this mess over the last few months.

And yet

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

We're going to solve the immigration thing by quietly pretending that all the people against immigration are actually OK with people of Asian and Middle Eastern heritage coming here. The immigration thing was totally about Polish people. Not about brown people whatsoever. Nosiree.

I don't see how your first post squares with the second? The implication or outright accusation that the leave vote was based on racism and prejudice runs through this thread like a stick of rock, usually being rolled out in response to any remotely positive news that's posted.

 

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

I don't see a problem with that at all. The issue is about democratic control and accountability to the people. That's Brexit. 

It's funny though.

We already have full democratic control. We have nearly full control of immigration as it stands, yet we choose not to enforce it.

We sent Brexit through the fully sovereign courts, who made a decision and the same people banging on about it during the campaigns,  labelled the judges as traitors and enemies.

People only want democratic control and sovereignty when it suits them.

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

The implication or outright accusation that the leave vote was based on racism and prejudice runs through this thread like a stick of rock, usually being rolled out in response to any remotely positive news that's posted.

You're just as guilty of this.

When MPs voted down the amendment protecting the rights of EU workers currently here, you blamed Merkel, as if she could speak for the non-EU immigration policies of 26 other independent nations.

[Awol]

9 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

As usual that would depend on who you ask. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/16/migration-pushing-australia-to-third-world-style-population-growth-rate

 

Interesting, so Australia is actually facing similar challenges to the UK in terms of pressure on physical and social infrastructure from high rates of migration. 

As a fully independent country Australian authorities have the ability to modify that policy and find the appropriate balance. I'm still thinking that's a good place to be, politically.

 

[Chindie]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

And yet

I don't see how your first post squares with the second? The implication or outright accusation that the leave vote was based on racism and prejudice runs through this thread like a stick of rock, usually being rolled out in response to any remotely positive news that's posted.

 

They tie quite well. 

You seemed to suggest that I believe the Brexit vote was entirely due to racism. I don't. Which has been discussed at length over the past 8 months.

I think immigration was a significant element of the equation. And id contest there is more then an element of racism in that being a problem (funnily enough I think much of the Leave campaign was keen to push an implied idea of taking back control of all immigration and many people fell for it. They wanted to shut the doors on notably different cultures, when the reality will be the Poles are gone but the others they wanted to go, are still coming. And need to be).

But the Brexit vote isn't entirely immigration and isn't entirely racist.

So you've, to my mind, made an argument against me that isn't one I actually hold. At best you're talking at odds with me, at worst it's a strawman.

[LondonLax]

Just now, Awol said:

Interesting, so Australia is actually facing similar challenges to the UK in terms of pressure on physical and social infrastructure from high rates of migration. 

As a fully independent country Australian authorities have the ability to modify that policy and find the appropriate balance. I'm still thinking that's a good place to be, politically.

 

In western societies, with ageing populations and low birth rates, the only way to keep the whole gig alive is by large scale immigration. 

All major political parties and industry groups understand this and will not be changing course anytime soon, brexit or no brexit. Now people are living longer but having less children the only way we are able to pay the massive increase in pensions from the dwindling tax base is to import people of working age from around the world.

[Awol]

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's funny though.

We already have full democratic control. We have nearly full control of immigration as it stands, yet we choose not to enforce it.

We sent Brexit through the fully sovereign courts, who made a decision and the same people banging on about it during the campaigns,  labelled the judges as traitors and enemies.

People only want democratic control and sovereignty when it suits them.

Nearly full control of immigration? While we have total free movement with 27 other countries? There's spin and there's blatant untruth, your firmly in the latter category with that statement.

 

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

You're just as guilty of this.

When MPs voted down the amendment protecting the rights of EU workers currently here, you blamed Merkel, as if she could speak for the non-EU immigration policies of 26 other independent nations.

Not sure if you read the whole exchange (I'm guessing not  judging by your post) but the reciprocal rights issue could have been sorted already pre the negotiations as May requested.

The EU side required unanimity and Merkel scuppered it. To then unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK would leave the fate of UK citizens in the EU hostage to fortune.

If you trust Barnier and Verhofstadt not to use their future as a point of negotiating leverage against the U.K. then you're more trusting than me.

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

In western societies, with ageing populations and low birth rates, the only way to keep the whole gig alive is by large scale immigration. 

All major political parties and industry groups understand this and will not be changing course anytime soon, brexit or no brexit. Now people are living longer but having less children the only way we are able to pay the massive increase in pensions from the dwindling tax base is to import people of working age from around the world.

Which is an argument for reform, not kicking the can down the road in some crazy human Ponzi scheme.

[PompeyVillan]

21 minutes ago, Awol said:

I don't see a problem with that at all. The issue is about democratic control and accountability to the people. That's Brexit. 

I think you may be in a minority of exit supporters, I think that there's a significant proportion that voted exit because they thought Brexit = lowering immigration.

My own anecdotal experience is that people 'want back control' but most don't know in what way we are currently 'controled'.

 

[Davkaus]

The EU doesn't compel us to have 'total free movement'.

EU citizens have a right to stay here for 3 months, any longer than that and they must be working, self-sufficient or in the process of obtaining employment which they have a genuine chance of gaining.

That's not 'total free movement', as much as the Ukips would like people to think there's millions 'flooding in', living on benefits.

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

Which is an argument for reform, not kicking the can down the road in some crazy human Ponzi scheme.

Our whole economic model of perpetual GDP growth is a Ponzi scheme, immigration is just one small aspect of the way human society operates globally. 

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Awol said:

Nearly full control of immigration? While we have total free movement with 27 other countries? There's spin and there's blatant untruth, your firmly in the latter category with that statement.

Well for one, we have full control over non-EU immigration, yet it continues to rise, or stay at the same level.

Secondly, did you read what I posted?

The EU free movement directive states that:

Quote

here is indeed unlimited free movement of tourists, and any citizen of an EU country can stay in another EU country for a period of three months without conditions.

However, a citizen of an EU country can stay in another EU country for more than three months only in three cases:

1. If she/he finds a job (becomes employed or self-employed), or
2. If she/he and accompanying family have sufficient resources and sickness insurance and do not become a burden on the social assistance system of the host member state, or
3. If she/he has a student status and sufficient resources to cover living expenses and sickness insurance.

New jobseekers have a slightly more preferential treatment. Following European Court of Justice rulings, they can stay up to six (and not three) months. However, a six-month period is not that long and after six months host country authorities can ask the jobseeker to leave if she/he cannot prove to have a realistic chance of finding work there (see here). Host country authorities can also expel the jobseeker, although this cannot be an automatic process and all relevant circumstances have to be considered.

Therefore, the free residency right can be exercised unconditionally only for a period up to three months, for jobseekers up to six months. But only workers (and their family members), students and the very rich who do not rely on the social assistance system of the host country can stay for longer. Permanent residency is acquired only after a continuous period of five years legal residency according to the conditions described above

So what is this about? really?

UK unemployment fell to a 11 year low last year. Yet, we have this free movement of workers apparently taking British jobs.

Okay, so people's opposition to free movement is to stop EU citizens coming over here and taking benefits. Well the EU free movement directive shows we can throw 'em out if that's their intentions. As soon as three months into their stay.

Okay, so is it skilled workers? Students?

I'm struggling to see an opposition to free movement, when unemployment keeps falling and we have the power, under EU law, to kick those out who come here and don't contribute.

1 minute ago, Awol said:

The EU side required unanimity and Merkel scuppered it. To then unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK would leave the fate of UK citizens in the EU hostage to fortune.

Again though, Merkel's opinion on the matter doesn't affect how 27 other countries want to treat us post-Brexit,

Also, wasn't Merkel's stance based on not wanting to negotiate before Article 50 is triggered?

[Davkaus]

The Merkel point is fair, IMO.

Her view doesn't represent all of the EU's, of course not, but it only takes one country to veto it, so her refusal to discuss it before article 50 is invoked puts the UK in an impossible position. It sounds awful to refuse to guarantee the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK, but it would have been incredibly reckless and foolish to do so without a reciprocal agreement.

Edited February 14, 2017 by Davkaus

[Enda]

Quote

Katie Storey ‏@KEStorey  6h6 hours ago

More

Asked my boyfriend what he's planned for us later and he just said "Valentine's means Valentine's and we're going to make a success of it"

 

[chrisp65]

There are lots of these totally non-racist perfectly rational and very well informed Brexit voters that are going to wonder why, in say 5 years time, there are still lots of brown coloured muslim types on our streets even after we took back control.

My experience of a large number of leave voters in work, at the football and in casual conversation, is that they didn't like foreign people being here and thought voting leave would send them back.

The government certainly picked up this mood music and voluntarily 'pre negotiated' a bargaining stance of leaving the single market so as to be able to stop free movement. 

 

[Chindie]

It's absolutely a significant element. It's not the whole story by any means, and there's certainly people for whom it's not an element at all. But it's definitely a strong flavour to it all overall IMO. There'll be a sense of betrayal when Indians and Pakistanis and Bangladeshi and Middle Eastern people keep coming.

[OutByEaster?]

I appear to have woken up in an alternative universe.

Tony Blair wants something overturned because it's based on the British people having been misled and feels he's the man that we should turn to as a paragon of virtue in this regard, while man of the people Iain Duncan Smith says that this shows that the political elite are completely out of touch with ordinary British folk.

 

[peterms]

58 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I appear to have woken up in an alternative universe.

Tony Blair wants something overturned because it's based on the British people having been misled and feels he's the man that we should turn to as a paragon of virtue in this regard, while man of the people Iain Duncan Smith says that this shows that the political elite are completely out of touch with ordinary British folk.

 

In a list of people you would prefer never to hear another word from ever again, these two clowns would surely make most people's top five.