Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

McGiver

McGiver wrote: »

You essentially suggest that lack of decentralisation would be corrected by leaving the centralised EU. Which is blatantly untrue.
Decentralisation is fully in the competence of the national governments.

Germany, Spain and other countries are significantly more decentralised than the UK whilst being members of the EU.

You suggest that leaving the EU is a tangible benefit in a sense that it will increase the decentralisation. This is not only speculative, because you don't know what the HMG will or will not legislate, but also entirely irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the EU membership.

So can you confirm for us the other two tangible benefits of leaving the EU? Since this one is irrelevant and speculative.

I've laboured this point thrice now, in the clearest, most unambiguous language.

I'll try one last time.

There are two types of decentralisation here - first, decentralisation that may be performed by national governments.

Second, there is centralisation of power within the EU.

I want that second layer of centralisation removed.

When it comes to nation states, they can - and should in my view - promote decentralisation in a way that works in a balanced way for communities and the wider national picture. If Scotland opted to Leave, that should be respected, irrespective of my view.

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

Second, there is centralisation of power within the EU.

Under whose power?

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

• The Immigration argument in relation to Brexit has been argued time and time again. And any argument i have seen in favor of 'curbing immigration', has always stroke me as a sanitized way of saying that one doesn't want non-nationals coming into ones country
• Culture integrates to a certain degree, and over a protracted period of time. Multi-Culturalism has trumped Enoch Powell's view of what would happen. In a previous post you stated 'I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that culture is something we should value' - 'The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes' - this view can only be considered Far Right my friend. It is the politics of the BNP and i reject it profoundly

The politics of the BNP, are you really saying that?

My view is crystal clear:

• There should be immigration into the UK, regardless of location, to meet the economic needs of the country. Diversity of backgrounds is a positive thing.
• That migration should be controlled; the quality and quantity of people.
• This managed migration allows government to plan.
• It assists the integration process, ensuring communities live together as opposed to side-by-side.
• If you have uncontrolled migration, as Diane Abbott wants to extend to other parts of the world beyond the EU, you may have uncontrolled numbers, perhaps rising to 1 million people a year, adding to the UK population. Whether you like it or not, that is simply unsustainable, makes it impossible to plan and allocate resources, and impacts integration - and a lack of integration impacts the cultural development of a country.

The BNP want next to no migration; base it on colour and ethnicity; and who are avowedly linked to Nazism and crazed theories like that.

How you can compare my version of migration with the BNP is beyond me.

Capt'n Midnight

McGiver wrote: »

UK fish exports account to 0.053% of UK exports and employs only a small number of people. It's completely irrelevant in economic terms. Yes, they can be grown, but that can be be done within EU as well.

UK Fishing declined due to the actions of HMG and not the EU. Fishing agreements predate the EU.

Not to mention a lot of the UK catch is landed at other EU ports by other EU owned trawlers.

This is because the UK does not enforce the existing rules which tells you everything you need to know about how important fishing really is to the UK govt.


Most of the UK quota is owned by foreign operators or concentrated in a few families. The notion of local jobs for local people can be summed up by remembering that only 2% of the Scottish catch is by inshore boats.

Voyager a single trawler that operates out of Killybegs has 52% of the Northern Ireland quota.


The only reason that fishing is on the agenda is that it got Tory MP's elected in Scotland. Since they have done nothing to enforce the existing rules or delivered on any promises the SNP will take back their seats.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet you claim all four "benefits" I listed are already within total control of the UK government:

I'd like you to back-up that claim.

That's not how it works: you're the one saying that the UK will enjoy "tangible benefits" by leaving the EU. Time and time again, you (and every other Brexiter who's come onto this thread, and almost every Brexiter who's phoned in to James O'Brien) has been asked to point out one specific law that can be enacted by the UK for the benefit of the UK once you've left the EU. To date, none of you has been able to find one.

"Controlling immigration" is not specific, and it is extremely easy for the UK authorities to control immigration as it is. GB is an island; other than drug dealers and (non-EU) immigrants travelling by RIB, everyone else enters through a supervised border point, staffed by UK-appointed, UK-trained customs and Border Force agents, operating according to UK rules passed by the UK parliament. How is Brexit going to change that in any way?

You say that you want points-based immigration. Fine. How does that stop the Somalis crossing the Channel and ending up on a beach in Deal?

You say that you want to select the quality of future immigrants. Fine. But how does that protect British jobs, if you're deliberately selecting foreigners who will compete directly with the British for the best-paying positions?

If you want me to "back up" my claim that the UK has control, you're going to have to offer a specific example that proves your point that the UK doesn't have control (and that Brexit will give it back).

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

The politics of the BNP, are you really saying that?

My view is crystal clear:

• There should be immigration into the UK, regardless of location, to meet the economic needs of the country. Diversity of backgrounds is a positive thing.
• That migration should be controlled; the quality and quantity of people.
• This managed migration allows government to plan.
• It assists the integration process, ensuring communities live together as opposed to side-by-side.
• If you have uncontrolled migration, as Diane Abbott wants to extend to other parts of the world beyond the EU, you may have uncontrolled numbers, perhaps rising to 1 million people a year, adding to the UK population. Whether you like it or not, that is simply unsustainable, makes it impossible to plan and allocate resources, and impacts integration - and a lack of integration impacts the cultural development of a country.

The BNP want next to no migration; base it on colour and ethnicity; and who are avowedly linked to Nazism and crazed theories like that.

How you can compare my version of migration with the BNP is beyond me.

I was not referring to your stance on Immigration specifically as you well know - my points reflected my view on each of your points, as quoted - previous posts where you make reference to a 'Nations state culture', are in fact far right in nature -

From the BNP Manifesto on Culture

The BNP will protect our unique and precious British identity from Mass Immigration, multi-culturalism, health’n’safety killjoys and globalisation.

https://bnp.org.uk/policies/british-culture/

With respect it is there in plain english, and in fact they link the dilution of British Culture to mass immigration - just as you do - If the genuine comparison upsets you, then you have my sympathy, but it is a fair comparison to make

Im not suggesting you are in the BNP i wish to make that abundantly clear - but it is not a stretch to say that if you firmly believe these stances, then i dare say you will have an audience among their supporters who will lap your opinions up

My own view of your opinion, is that it is one of someone who simply doesnt like the European Union, and if so, why not say that. Arguing along ethno cultural lines, in favor of brexit was always going to end up with the fair comparison

First Up

First Up wrote: »

Under whose power?

Between 13-62% of laws passed or applied to the UK between 1993 and 2014 derive from EU institutions.

Even if we take a lower figure of, say, 25% (as it depends on what you include etc.), that is a staggeringly high figure (though I suspect a figure around 40-50% is more accurate) and it's indicative of how law-making powers are EU-derived. The exact % of laws is irrelevant to me. What matters is the principle; and in my political view, all laws, or at least as many as possible, should be made by the host country and not an ever-integrating political European Union. It creates distance between citizens and where those powers derive. For this fundamental reason, I would rather see the UK dismiss this form of centralised law-generating power, and instead, return that power to the UK - whole and entire - and, if I had my way, more powers would devolve to the component parts of the UK.

Now many Remainers point the finger - which specific EU law are you unhappy with?

Again, it's not about the content of the laws, it's about the principle from which they are developed.

Letwin_Larry

there is little doubt this guy will be missed, by LEAVERS. i think he did more for the Leave cause than he ever imagined

https://www.ft.com/content/c4919c38-0642-11ea-a984-fbbacad9e7dd

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Now many Remainers point the finger - which law?

Again, it's not about the laws, it's about the principle from which they are developed.

Really? You're objecting to the principle of the UK enacting laws that the UK helped to draft, because the UK, as a modern economy, happens to agree with other modern economies that those laws are a good idea?

So when you go out for a meal with a group of people, on principle, you believe that you should each be allowed to choose the restaurant independently of the other? And it's "morally" wrong for you to pool your decision-making so that all of you end up at the same table?

Here's a specific example for you: what is wrong with the European Pet Passport scheme? In principle and in practice.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Really? You're objecting to the principle of the UK enacting laws that the UK helped to draft, because the UK, as a modern economy, happens to agree with other modern economies that those laws are a good idea?

So when you go out for a meal with a group of people, on principle, you believe that you should each be allowed to choose the restaurant independently of the other? And it's "morally" wrong for you to pool your decision-making so that all of you end up at the same table?

Awful comparison, but let's take the gastronomic analogy to its full conclusion.

It's the equivalent of 27 friends collectively agreeing to visit a restaurant, then having your meal chosen for you. You may have had input, perhaps you vocalised your preference and indicated that you want to visit another restaurant, but in the end, your meal was chosen for you and you were told to stay or you may be billed anyway. Your rang your family back home and told them what happened. They were aghast, and asked you to Leave the restaurant and move into a buffet restaurant where you can opt for whatever deals and meals you prefer.

No thanks. I'll choose my own meals, even if they are vegan and tasteless.

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

Between 13-62% of laws passed or applied to the UK between 1993 and 2014

Derive from EU institutions

Yes, I know. I'm asking under whose power.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

Yes, I know. I'm asking under whose power.

Under the power of...the EU.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Awful comparison, but let's take the gastronomic analogy to its full conclusion.

It's the equivalent of 27 friends collectively agreeing to visit a restaurant, then having your meal chosen for you. You may have had input, perhaps you vocalised your preference and indicated that you want to visit another restaurant, but in the end, your meal was chosen for you and you were told to stay or you may be billed anyway. Your rang your family back home and told them what happened. They were aghast, and asked you to Leave the restaurant and move into a buffet restaurant where you can opt for whatever deals and meals you prefer.

No thanks. I'll choose my own meals, even if they are vegan and tasteless.

Why wouldn't you use your veto if you really didnt like the meal?

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Between 13-62% of laws passed or applied to the UK between 1993 and 2014 derive from EU institutions.

Even if we take a lower figure of, say, 25% (as it depends on what you include etc.), that is a staggeringly high figure (though I suspect a figure around 40-50% is more accurate) and it's indicative of how law-making powers are EU-derived. The exact % of laws is irrelevant to me. What matters is the principle; and in my political view, all laws, or at least as many as possible, should be made by the host country and not an ever-integrating political European Union. It creates distance between citizens and where those powers derive. For this fundamental reason, I would rather see the UK dismiss this form of centralised law-generating power, and instead, return that power to the UK - whole and entire - and, if I had my way, more powers would devolve to the component parts of the UK.

Now many Remainers point the finger - which specific EU law are you unhappy with?

Again, it's not about the content of the laws, it's about the principle from which they are developed.

The key EU laws that affect the UK apply mainly to subjectss like the environment, healthy and safety and working hours.

EU laws have no say over the NHS, housing, education, the criminal justice system, the UK budget, social security, taxation and a myriad of other areas.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Why wouldn't you use your veto if you really didnt like the meal?

Because I came to the conclusion that I didn't want to engage in this type of relationship, forever going to the same restaurant - with the same stagnant menu and the same people - and with the same structure of how decisions are to be made.

I chose independence, now I can do as I please. 14-63% of my decisions are no longer made around that restaurant table.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

It's the equivalent of 27 friends collectively agreeing to visit a restaurant, then having your meal chosen for you. You may have had input, perhaps you vocalised your preference, but in the end, your meal was chosen for you.

That'd be a fine analogy ... except that's not how the EU works. No member state in the EU has their meals chosen for them. The analogy ends at the point where the 27 friends agree collectively to opt for a Chinese or an Indian or an Italian restaurant, and within that context, adapt their choices according to the menu.

Now what we've seen many times over the years is that the UK takes the EU menu, picks something expensive, orders a side of some condiment it doesn't like and then refuses to eat it.

CelticRambler

@eskimo, you might have missed this edit to my earlier post, so I'll do you the courtesy of re-posting it before I criticise you for not answering:

CelticRambler wrote: »

Here's a specific example for you: what is wrong with the European Pet Passport scheme? In principle and in practice.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Between 13-62% of laws passed or applied to the UK between 1993 and 2014 derive from EU institutions.

Even if we take a lower figure of, say, 25% (as it depends on what you include etc.), that is a staggeringly high figure (though I suspect a figure around 40-50% is more accurate) and it's indicative of how law-making powers are EU-derived. The exact % of laws is irrelevant to me. What matters is the principle; and in my political view, all laws, or at least as many as possible, should be made by the host country and not an ever-integrating political European Union. It creates distance between citizens and where those powers derive. For this fundamental reason, I would rather see the UK dismiss this form of centralised law-generating power, and instead, return that power to the UK - whole and entire - and, if I had my way, more powers would devolve to the component parts of the UK.

Now many Remainers point the finger - which specific EU law are you unhappy with?

Again, it's not about the content of the laws, it's about the principle from which they are developed.

You have chosen to ignore the obvious parallel between your views on Nation State Culture, and the views of Far Right Wing British Political Politics

Could you please highlight some laws that you believe the British People will rejoice in having to no longer obey on February first - Laws which, incidentally, were agreed to by the majority of Political Parties in the EU Parliament in which British Politicians sit

I am not asking you to outline your principles, you have done so many times. Be specific if you can\

EDIT - you have chosen to engage on your previous views and i shall do like-wise

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Im not suggesting you are in the BNP i wish to make that abundantly clear - but it is not a stretch to say that if you firmly believe these stances, then i dare say you will have an audience among their supporters who will lap your opinions up

My own view of your opinion, is that it is one of someone who simply doesnt like the European Union, and if so, why not say that. Arguing along ethno cultural lines, in favor of brexit was always going to end up with the fair comparison

Let's delve deeper.

Do you see any connection between the numbers of people entering a country versus the social impact that those numbers have?

Second question, are you a proponent of the Abbott view, which states that free movement of people should be extended from the EU to many other parts of the world?

Thirdly, do you believe there should be a limit on the numbers of people entering a country?

I'll have a better view of your perspective once we know the answers to these three questions.

Strazdas

CelticRambler wrote: »

That'd be a fine analogy ... except that's not how the EU works. No member state in the EU has their meals chosen for them. The analogy ends at the point where the 27 friends agree collectively to opt for a Chinese or an Indian or an Italian restaurant, and within that context, adapt their choices according to the menu.

Now what we've seen many times over the years is that the UK takes the EU menu, picks something expensive, orders a side of some condiment it doesn't like and then refuses to eat it.

The UK would be the troublemaker customer, constantly complaining about the price and the service, always sending food back to the kitchen, whilst everyone else in the restaurant is happy with the service.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's delve deeper.

Do you see any connection between the numbers of people entering a country versus the social impact that those numbers have?

Delve deeper, says he ... then asks an impossibly broad question ... :rolleyes:

One which was factually answered earlier today. Yes, there is a connection: overall, immigrants have a net positive effect on the society of the country into which they immigrate. At worst, their contribution is equal to the natives, but overall, European immigrants contribute significantly more (per capita) to the finances and social fabric of the UK than do British-born natives.

Non-EU migrants (whose numbers are wholly controlled by the UK) contribute less, but under recent Tory governments their numbers have gone up, and that increase is projected to accelerate post Brexit. Regardless of whether future immigration is points-based or not, Britain is forecast to become "less white" as a result of Brexit.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's delve deeper.

Do you see any connection between the numbers of people entering a country versus the social impact that those numbers have?

Second question, are you a proponent of the Abbott view, which states that free movement of people should be extended from the EU to many other parts of the world?

Thirdly, do you believe there should be a limit on the numbers of people entering a country?

I'll have a better view of your perspective once we know the answers to these three questions.

Do you see any connection between the numbers of people entering a country versus the social impact that those numbers have?

The main impact that immigration has, and has always had in my view, is to arm people of similar view to yourself with what they need to criticize immigration. Therefore it is not immigration per-say that creates division and social problems, it is views like those you espouse that divide society into Pro, and Anti Immigration. - Immigration is part of the world, and it happens throughout. Broadly speaking the vast majority of people coming to ireland, and Britain in the context of this discussion, are coming to make a better life for themselves. They will work, contribute with taxes, and over the course of years, perhaps a generation, their families will integrate to a certain extent; while respectfully retaining their original culture too - thats why America is poulated with many 'Irish Americans', and so too is the UK.

The growth in acceptability and popularity of the 'Anti Immigration' argument is part of the reason why minorities do not integrate - because when they hear those arguments, they feel that they do not belong. It is dangerous rhetorical nonsense, and i condemn it anywhere i see it.

Second question, are you a proponent of the Abbott view, which states that free movement of people should be extended from the EU to many other parts of the world?

If we are talking about legitimate Legal Immigration, then why would you not allow it? What are you afraid of?

Thirdly, do you believe there should be a limit on the numbers of people entering a country?

There is no need to specifically limit immigration in peace time, unless in the case of a proper financial crisis - in that case the EU provides a mechanism referred to as an 'Emergency Break', due to domestic economic circumstances

I have to argue that in relation to Brexit, which is at the core of what you are saying - you are not proving why Brexit is a good thing - you are highlighting why so many people voted for Brexit - they listened to your type of Arguments, and bought it - and its deeply sad



All culture is to be valued, and to value any one culture over another, is unacceptable - i find it astonishing that you would do so - and i now directly ask you to address the obvious parallel between your views and those of the BNP - as outlined when it comes to the 'importance of nation state culture' you are as one

Respectful as always - but firm in my criticism

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

Under the power of...the EU.

Good man.

Now, how is power allocated in the EU?

You see, we could have much better conversations if you knew what you were talking about.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Do you see any connection between the numbers of people entering a country versus the social impact that those numbers have?

The main impact that immigration has, and has always had in my view, is to arm people of similar view to yourself with what they need to criticize immigration. Therefore it is not immigration per-say that creates division and social problems, it is views like those you espouse that divide society into Pro, and Anti Immigration.

Second question, are you a proponent of the Abbott view, which states that free movement of people should be extended from the EU to many other parts of the world?

If we are talking about legitimate Legal Immigration, then why would you not allow it? What are you afraid of?

Thirdly, do you believe there should be a limit on the numbers of people entering a country?

There is no need to specifically limit immigration in peace time, unless in the case of a proper financial crisis - in that case the EU provides a mechanism referred to as an 'Emergency Break', due to domestic economic circumstances

I have to argue that in relation to Brexit, which is at the core of what you are saying - you are not proving why Brexit is a good thing - you are highlighting why so many people voted for Brexit - they listened to your type of Arguments, and bought it - and its deeply sad

Okay, so I assume you are for permanent open borders, everywhere? You would like to see the UK open - without visa controls or anything like that - to the rest of the world, because, in your view, there is nothing negative about uncontrolled migration.

I have to say, that's a pretty extreme position!

You claim that I'm "anti-immigration".

I'm not anti-immigration, I'm pro-controlled migration - controlling the quality and quantity of people entering a country.

As I've stated already, immigration can be, and is, a good thing if it's managed properly. You appear to be arguing that even if 2 million people entered the UK, unvetted, each year, it would cause no problems whatosever. That is simply not true. It would not be possible to integrate numbers that large and it would make social planning impossible. And yes, it would cause sudden cultural impacts.

For example, Australia manages their own migration policy, but it doesn't make Australia or all Australians the equivalent of the BNP.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

As I've stated already, immigration can be, and is, a good thing if it's managed properly.

Given that immigration into the UK is not currently controlled by the UK/Tory government, despite the various powers available, how will Brexit change that?

Deleted User wrote: »

For example, Australia manages their own migration policy, but it doesn't make Australia or all Australians the equivalent of the BNP.

Can you provide us with links showing how the Aboriginal people of Australia, and their culture, have benefited from the current Australian immigration controls?

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

The politics of the BNP, are you really saying that?

My view is crystal clear:

• There should be immigration into the UK, regardless of location, to meet the economic needs of the country.
  

The “economic needs” of the country demanded EU migration - and in fact could have done with even more EU migration that the UK received. Had there been double or treble the amount of EU migration, the economic benefits to the UK would have been even greater than they already were. This is precisely why the UK government demanded it.
If you believe that the economic benefits should determine migration - why shut off the tap on the economic beneficial migration - young, secular, educated, integratable migrants who will move away to another European country if there is unemployment and statistically contributed massively to the UK economy - and instead import people who take from the economy and damage social cohesion?

Diversity of backgrounds is a positive thing.
[*]That migration should be controlled; the quality and quantity of people.
[*]This managed migration allows government to plan.
[*]It assists the integration process, ensuring communities live together as opposed to side-by-side.

I note that (like the Tories and their talking points) you continuously refuse to say whether you want more or less migration than at present. Migration is already planned. At this stage, the flow into the UK of EU migration is so tiny compared to the actual level of total migration, that it is a mere statistical blip. The UK could very easily control overall migration simply by controlling the “teeming hordes“ of non-EU migrants that it allows into the country - why do you think it doesn’t do that?

[*]If you have uncontrolled migration, as Diane Abbott wants to extend to other parts of the world beyond the EU, you may have uncontrolled numbers, perhaps rising to 1 million people a year, adding to the UK population. Whether you like it or not, that is simply unsustainable, makes it impossible to plan and allocate resources, and impacts integration - and a lack of integration impacts the cultural development of a country.

Who cares and what has that got to do with the EU? It is and was always a UK competence.

fash

CelticRambler wrote: »

Given that immigration into the UK is not currently controlled by the UK/Tory government, despite the various powers available, how will Brexit change that?


Can you provide us with links showing how the Aboriginal people of Australia, and their culture, have benefited from the current Australian immigration controls?

Of note, Australia has 3 times the amount of migration that the UK has - hence the interesting question that Eskimohunt refuses to answer as to what level of migration the UK should target overall.

briany

CelticRambler wrote: »

Non-EU migrants (whose numbers are wholly controlled by the UK) contribute less, but under recent Tory governments their numbers have gone up, and that increase is projected to accelerate post Brexit. Regardless of whether future immigration is points-based or not, Britain is forecast to become "less white" as a result of Brexit.

Undoubtedly, immigration was a factor in the decision of the UK to vote leave. You therefore wonder what's going to happen when those who voted Leave mainly on the basis of immigration finish celebrating and look around. They look around and see that 5 years on, or 10 years on, that the makeup of their local community really hasn't changed. If anything, it's getting further from their ideal. And worse still, there is no bogeyman for the politicians to blame. At this point the finger of blame lands squarely on the homegrown politicians themselves and things get very ugly in the UK, indeed.

First Up

eskimohunt wrote:

I'm not anti-immigration, I'm pro-controlled migration - controlling the quality and quantity of people entering a country.

Here's a suggestion; put your keyboard down and take the time to educate yourself in what the EU is, how the member states interact and how decisions are made.

When you've done that, read up on the EU Single Market and how it replicates another single market - i.e the USA - in the unrestricted movement of goods, capital and people.

You might then reflect on the relative advantages and disadvantages of allowing migration between regions, seeing as most people think the US has done quite well from it.

It would also help if you stopped looking at the world through the prism of 19th century nationalism because the world has moved on and you really should try to catch up.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, so I assume you are for permanent open borders, everywhere? You would like to see the UK open - without visa controls or anything like that - to the rest of the world, because, in your view, there is nothing negative about uncontrolled migration.

I have to say, that's a pretty extreme position!

You claim that I'm "anti-immigration".

I'm not anti-immigration, I'm pro-controlled migration - controlling the quality and quantity of people entering a country.

As I've stated already, immigration can be, and is, a good thing if it's managed properly. You appear to be arguing that even if 2 million people entered the UK, unvetted, each year, it would cause no problems whatosever. That is simply not true. It would not be possible to integrate numbers that large and it would make social planning impossible. And yes, it would cause sudden cultural impacts.

For example, Australia manages their own migration policy, but it doesn't make Australia or all Australians the equivalent of the BNP.

Well i shall begin by immediately stating that i take no lectures on 'Extremism' from someone who's opinion on 'protecting the culture of the nation state', is a paraphrase of the policy of the British National Party

You speak of the Quality of those people seeking to Immigrate to a specific country - let us speak on that term for a moment. Britain is a multi cultural country, largely due to the historic past of British Imperialism. And throughout the last 40+ years various arguments have been raised against immigration

• Initially there was Enoch Powell (who joined the DUP as even the Tory party of the 1970s just wasnt right wing enough for him) - arguing on the erosion of Britishness
• This became unpopular, rightly and was turned, into an argument on migration from the EU
• A current strain now exists, of which you seem to be in favor, which seeks to 'CONTROL' immigration and this is now based on 'quality'

I put it to you that your view is simply the evolution of many years of thought based on an unwillingness to accept multi-culturalism as being the status quo- The numbers have always demonstrated that people travel to Britain to Work there - be it in highly professional positions for which they are educated, or in industry, where they can receive a modest income and live comfortably - In all honesty you have been sold a pub so to speak, and seem to have bought into Nigel Farage's idea that Britain is BURSTING AT THE SEAMS with immigrants, when in fact it is not. It is campaign propaganda, heightened during the Brexit Ref

The Only controls necessary are in relation to

• Asylum seekers - of which i would support accepting the vast majority. They are human beings who need assistance to escape their circumstance - i would control it simply to avoid instances where criminals are seeking to avoid justice by this means - and this is a TINY amount compared to a vast majority who are legitimate
• Illegal Immigration - where we need to avoid the horrendous loss of life that we have seen recently involving desperate people trying to escape the harsh circumstances in which they fin themselves

You address the later by having the former managed better

Finally - i wish to address you directly and ask you to consider this. You do not like the EU - it is clear to see that. And as someone who doesnt like the EU, anything that damages or potentially weakens it is a good thing - why not just say that, instead of arguing along the lines you are?

Respectfully