Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

fash wrote: »

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.

Shush! :eek: There's no place for inconvenient factual truths in this conversation.

... but to help out a struggling Brexiter, I will lead by example and provide two links that show how Australia's "controlled migration" does absolutely nothing for the indigenous population.
https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/Abs@.Nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/5f17e6c26744e1d1ca25823800728282!OpenDocument]Australian Bureau of Statistics

Non-Indigenous people in 2016 were 1.4 times more likely than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be employed.

https://www.actu.org.au/media/258515/indifact.pdf]Austalian Council of Trade Unions (PDF)

• 20% of Indigenous workers are participating in the Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) scheme, based on welfare payments.
• The Indigenous unemployment rate would exceed 40% – more than five times the national average – if CDEP participants were included in official statistics.
• In the absence of the CDEP scheme, the unemployment rate for Indigenous people is forecast to rise to 48% by 2006 if current trends continue.

So as Australia is one of the countries that eskimo holds up as a good model for a post-Brexit UK, we can assume that anyone who voted for Leave voted for immigration controls that will disenfranchise the indigenous British population in favour of non-EU migrants. OK ... .... ..... so how does that concord with preserving the purity of indigenous British culture?

CelticRambler

liamtech wrote: »

i would control it simply to avoid instances where criminals are seeking to avoid justice by this means

Point of order, liamtech: 17.4m people voted for the British police to discontinue all cooperation with their European colleagues on matters of pan-European criminality.

At least that's what I read on th'internet: Leave means Leave, everything, cut all ties, go it alone in the world ... European Arrest Warrants are tainted with the smell of Belgian chocolate and French cheese. :pac:

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

You claim this...



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.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not personally responsible for what the Tory's do or not do. They do a lot I agree with, and a lot I disagree with; an analysis I have with every government of the day, indeed every country's government.

I've already sketched out the moral argument on why it's imperative to deliver on the 2016 referendum result. I think that my argument came out relatively unscathed, still packing a powerful political punch.

What I've now been asked to do is to outline any possible benefits of Brexit. I've issued four which, at least in theory, are beneficial to the nation-state, namely:

• Controlling (not necessarily reducing) EU migration to a greater extent.
• Culture / ensuring integration is managed; eliminating division.
• Restoring coastal fishing communities; enhancing those local economies.
• Restoring law generation to the UK parliament; eliminating that centralised power.

If the Tory's, or anyone else, do not capitalize on these advantages, then shame on them.

But these are tangible benefits, there's no question about it.

None of those "benefits" are even "benefits" of the magnitude of not having so many Brits retiring to Spain, not having to listen to Farage's lies in the EU parliament.
All of those "benefits" are less than marginal: the UK's fisheries are limited by international treaties on overfishing (e.g. the UN law of the sea Convention) ( which is the fully utilised hard limit on the amount of possible fishing in UK waters) its fishing industry relies on selling fresh fish into the EU as its most lucrative activity (which will be stopped unless the UK accepts the EU's terms), the sort of fish caught in UK waters is not eaten in the UK, English fishermen rely heavily on fishing in Irish and Norwegian waters, furthermore there are pre-existing rights of non UK fishermen to fish in UK waters which continue.
At the very best the existing situation will be allowed to continue - every other scenario is a calamity for the UK fishing industry. Furthermore the idea that the UK politicians (the same people as Nigel Farage who effectively never showed up to his job on the EU fishing committee) and those that were happy to sell UK quotas to the highest foreign bidder are going to do anything other can cave to EU demands to continue the status quo is completely risible.
Hence all that is achieved is a massive disimprovement on the current situation - at best the same situation in relation to the industry but losing all the benefits of being in the EU (FOM etc.)

liamtech

CelticRambler wrote: »

Point of order, liamtech: 17.4m people voted for the British police to discontinue all cooperation with their European colleagues on matters of pan-European criminality.

At least that's what I read on th'internet: Leave means Leave, everything, cut all ties, go it alone in the world ... European Arrest Warrants are tainted with the smell of Belgian chocolate and French cheese. :pac:

I thank my right honorable friend, and yes that is yet another valid consideration. Again it only highlights once more the complete invalidity of what is being argued by the gentleman on the opposite bench

Huzza!

And to the member on the opposite bench - Shame! Resign!! (liamtech lifts nearest piece of paper in the air - its a gas bill - exclaims, damn i need to pay that)

EDIT - joking aside its very valid - reducing co-operation across international boundaries is going to damage Britain ability to handle the the crisis with asylum seekers

fash

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

Furthermore the majority of EU laws are proposed and enthusiastically pushed by the UK (in fact no country has shaped the single market as much as the UK). The last time the UK pushed against EU laws was in relation to bankers bonuses (and frankly I say if the UK believes bankers are paid too little, they should introduce a minimum wage). Furthermore a large amount of EU law is driven by international organisations and obligations which will exist no matter the form of brexit.

McGiver

eskimohunt wrote:

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.

Almost all of the legislation pertains to the EU Single Market. Which the UK spearheaded and pushed to establish. Pan-european Common Market requires regulations, many regulations.

The EU remaining legislation pertains to the fact that it is a supranational organisation and requires rules to operate and function.

So from what I can see, you are a living confirmation of my thesis that the UK political class are unable to exist in a cooperative arrangement of an international organisation which they cannot control and that they brainwashed/conditioned large % of the population (that includes you) that this is an actual issue, almost the greatest issue the country faces and if the issue is resolved the UK will become a heaven on earth free of the shackles of the EU.

The UK political class were the rulers of the world and subjugated half of the planet's peoples. This is not the case anymore and won't happen again, but the political class and the population they kept in check are unable/unwilling to give up the imperial mindset, they are stuck in year 1910. The essence of British exceptionalism.

McGiver

fash wrote:

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.

Demanded and didn't restrict. Which it could but didn't. In any way whatsoever.

Strazdas

McGiver wrote: »

Demanded and didn't restrict. Which it could but didn't. In any way whatsoever.

The freedom of movement "problem" was completely manufactured by the right wing tabloids. Sir Ivan Rogers says he has no recollection of the UK raising FoM laws with the EU before 2013.....it was around this time that the right wing press started kicking off with stories about 'swarms' of eastern European migrants 'flooding' into the UK.

fash

Strazdas wrote: »

The freedom of movement "problem" was completely manufactured by the right wing tabloids. Sir Ivan Rogers says he has no recollection of the UK raising FoM laws with the EU before 2013.....it was around this time that the right wing press started kicking off with stories about 'swarms' of eastern European migrants 'flooding' into the UK.

One wonders if brexiters realise the extent to which they are merely mindless drones spewing out what they've been conditioned to spew. Did Eskimohunt believe what he currently believes prior to 2013?

CelticRambler

fash wrote: »

One wonders if brexiters realise the extent to which they are merely mindless drones spewing out what they've been conditioned to spew. Did Eskimohunt believe what he currently believes prior to 2013?

Probably yes. I've heard the same complaints about "immigrants taking our jobs" in different EEC/EU countries for the last three decades. All that's happened, I think, is that a cohort of (unelected, undemocratic) rich white guys figured out how to harness that discontent and turn it to their own monetary advantage.

Countries with proportional representation and a tradition of government by consensus were/are better placed to resist that kind of wholesale manipulation of the political process, because overall, there isn't a majority with views so extreme.

That, of course, is why the pro-Brexit lobby is so desperate to avoid any kind of nuanced confirmatory vote: it would destroy the simplistic "Brexit means Brexit" definition, and - probably - result in the majority deciding to stick with an arrangement that works quite well for everyone.

liamtech

CelticRambler wrote: »

Probably yes. I've heard the same complaints about "immigrants taking our jobs" in different EEC/EU countries for the last three decades. All that's happened, I think, is that a cohort of (unelected, undemocratic) rich white guys figured out how to harness that discontent and turn it to their own monetary advantage.

Countries with proportional representation and a tradition of government by consensus were/are better placed to resist that kind of wholesale manipulation of the political process, because overall, there isn't a majority with views so extreme.

That, of course, is why the pro-Brexit lobby is so desperate to avoid any kind of nuanced confirmatory vote: it would destroy the simplistic "Brexit means Brexit" definition, and - probably - result in the majority deciding to stick with an arrangement that works quite well for everyone.

One of the worst parts of the entire Brexit crisis, is that it gives comfort to those who hold what i consider to be hard right wing views.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/racist-hate-crimes-surge-to-record-high-after-brexit-vote-new-figures-reveal-a7829551.html

We saw this the morning after the referendum result. And it may be uncomfortable for more tolerant Leave Voters to accept this, but the Referendum result was see by many in the extreme right as a Green Light to agitate against minority communities in Britain

The more sophisticated arguments For Brexit, tend to try and sanitize this, and make it about 'national pride and principle', but they do not fully succeed in doing so.

I still have yet to see a sensible argument FOR BREXIT - anywhere

That, of course, is why the pro-Brexit lobby is so desperate to avoid any kind of nuanced confirmatory vote: it would destroy the simplistic "Brexit means Brexit" definition,

I really have not seen it stated better anywhere.

Capt'n Midnight

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?

Non-EU immigration is totally controlled by the UK.



The UK has controlled immigration from the EU.

Thanks to the fall in sterling and improving economies in the east the gap between the UK and Eastern Europe has narrowed. It's no longer the attractive destination it used to be.

Immigration it has stabilised. There was no net increase in EU residents in the latest stats.



Tory talk about immigration is just promising to fixing potholes that keep getting them re-elected. They aren't going to kill that golden goose.

lawred2

Strazdas wrote: »

The freedom of movement "problem" was completely manufactured by the right wing tabloids. Sir Ivan Rogers says he has no recollection of the UK raising FoM laws with the EU before 2013.....it was around this time that the right wing press started kicking off with stories about 'swarms' of eastern European migrants 'flooding' into the UK.

Wonder who funded that editorial direction?

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

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

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 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

You didn't answer my question. Please try to robustly answer it:

Do you believe in complete open borders, that anyone in the world can, at any time and without any visas, visit and stay in the United Kingdom?

Meaning if the numbers were 1-2 million per year, you would presumably have no problem with that.

If that is your position, then yes, that is absolutely extreme.

As I've said previously, I am in favour of immigration from all over the world, as long as it's controlled quantity/quality-wise, such that the country is aware, in advance, of who is coming into the country / what their background is / if they have any criminal record / if they have the necessary skills to meet a given economic need. That may mean the same numbers of migrants coming from EU/non-EU sources, it may not. The point is that it's up to government to be aware of how many migrants are needed to fulfil these economic needs. To have an uncontrolled situation, where anyone can, as of now, visit the UK without these kinds of background checks, is not a responsible way to govern borders.

As for non-EU migration, I think government has been absolutely insane with its policy.

You mentioned "controlling illegal immigration". I don't know why "illegal immigration" even exists in your worldview given that you previously stated that you wish to see free movement extended to the rest of the world. If that's the case, you cannot control illegal immigration by definition.

fash wrote: »

Did Eskimohunt believe what he currently believes prior to 2013?

Yes.

CelticRambler

Same old, same old ...

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that it's up to government to be aware of how many migrants are needed to fulfil these economic needs. To have an uncontrolled situation, where anyone can, as of now, visit the UK without these kinds of background checks, is not a responsible way to govern borders.

How is Brexit going to fix that? Because up to now, the UK has done absolutely nothing to enforce the powers that it has in this respect. And that's mostly been while the Conservatives have been in power, so what makes you think that particular leopard will change its spots after Brexit?

In fact, it'll be worse, because you say you voted for the UK to withdraw from (amongst other things) all the pan-European structures that give the British access to that kind of information, at least with respect to EU nationals.

And how do you define "quality" ?

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

How is Brexit going to fix that? Because up to now, the UK has done absolutely nothing to enforce the powers that it has in this respect. And that's mostly been while the Conservatives have been in power, so what makes you think that particular leopard will change its spots after Brexit?

In fact, it'll be worse, because you say you voted for the UK to withdraw from (amongst other things) all the pan-European structures that give the British access to that kind of information, at least with respect to EU nationals.

And how do you define "quality" ?

Brexit is the attempt to remedy the EU-element of migration.

Government is at fault for non-EU migration, as they already have full control over who can/cannot stay in the country.

In terms of EU migration, the point is clear: to treat EU migration in exactly the same respect as non-EU migration; no discrimination in favour of European migrants to come to the UK and have automatic rights to search for work. Instead, it's an equal playing field. The government of the day decides who can come to meet a given economic need. It's that simple; the same as how much of the rest of the world governs their borders.

Quality = individuals qualified for a given economic need; who have no criminal record; and who speak English to a sufficiently necessary standard to meet the employment opportunity on offer.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Brexit is the attempt to remedy the EU-element of migration.

In terms of EU migration, the point is clear: to treat EU migration in exactly the same respect as non-EU migration; no discrimination in favour of European migrants to come to the UK and have automatic rights to search for work. Instead, it's an equal playing field. The government of the day decides who can come to meet a given economic need. It's that simple; the same as how much of the rest of the world governs their borders.

Well, given that EU migrants are almost exclusively economic migrants, and therefore only exercise their Freedom of Movement rights when there's an economic need, what additional control would this "equal playing field" give the government?

And given that the UK government already has the power to limit any half-hearted economic migrants from staying in the country beyond three months, if they don't support themselves and contribute to the UK economy, is it worth burning the bridge that takes young (and not-so-young) Brits in the other direction, to fill jobs and gain experience in the 27 other EU countries?

And where do you draw the line with this kind of discrimination? Should Scottish people be told to stay in Scotland unless there's an economic need for them in London? What about the Irish (Northern or "Southern") - should they stay on their island unless and until the British Government tells them they're needed?

CelticRambler

Regarding "culture" as something you said should be protected, when you voted Leave, were you not being hypocritical in this respect - because (by your own admission) you voted to remove all the UK from the EU's Geographical Indicator Protection scheme. So as of Brexit-Day, anyone in the EU can produce their own Scotch Whisky, Melton Mowbray pork pies, Cornish Pasties, Buxton Blue cheese, etc, etc. Considering your concern for the fishing industry, why is worth selling out all these other food sectors when they contribute to both the financial well-being of the communities concerned and reinforce many aspects of British culture.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well, given that EU migrants are almost exclusively economic migrants, and therefore only exercise their Freedom of Movement rights when there's an economic need, what additional control would this "equal playing field" give the government?

And given that the UK government already has the power to limit any half-hearted economic migrants from staying in the country beyond three months, if they don't support themselves and contribute to the UK economy, is it worth burning the bridge that takes young (and not-so-young) Brits in the other direction, to fill jobs and gain experience in the 27 other EU countries?

And where do you draw the line with this kind of discrimination? Should Scottish people be told to stay in Scotland unless there's an economic need for them in London? What about the Irish (Northern or "Southern") - should they stay on their island unless and until the British Government tells them they're needed?

It means we can do more to prevent this:

The source is data that was released in response to a Freedom of Information request by the Metropolitan Police. According to this, there were 27,725 arrests of Romanian nationals in the five years covering the period 2008 to 2012. (In fact, owing to a change in recording methodology, data for 2008 only covers the months April to December, so may underestimate the total for this year.)

The claim that 90% of crime at ATMs (or cash machines) is the work of Romanian gangs has often been repeated in the press as far back as early 2012.

It can be traced back to DCI Paul Barnard, then head of the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit (DCPCU) - a police unit run in partnership with banks and financial services companies. DCI Barnard told ITV1's 'Fraud Squad' programme that:

"The fact is 92 per cent of all ATM fraud we see in this country is committed by Romanian nationals."

Government can do more to prevent crimes caused by European migrants. When you have a complete open door to half-a-billion people, who can arrive with a passport and nothing more, it means that prospective criminals can flow into your country.

By having tougher controls, and by deporting those who have the audacity to visit another country and commit a crime against its people, border controls ensure that high-quality talent is chosen before they enter the country; whilst doing more to prevent this type of criminal activity entering the country.

Of course, you can never completely stop this type of crime. That's for sure. But let's not add to the already existing crime problem by introducing more ways for this type of crime to flourish.

If we then followed Liamtech's advice and opened up the borders from the EU to the rest of the world, we'd see more opportunities for criminals to make their way into the country. An absolutely insane proposal.

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. Please try to robustly answer it:

Do you believe in complete open borders, that anyone in the world can, at any time and without any visas, visit and stay in the United Kingdom?

Meaning if the numbers were 1-2 million per year, you would presumably have no problem with that.

If that is your position, then yes, that is absolutely extreme.

As I've said previously, I am in favour of immigration from all over the world, as long as it's controlled quantity/quality-wise, such that the country is aware, in advance, of who is coming into the country / what their background is / if they have any criminal record / if they have the necessary skills to meet a given economic need. That may mean the same numbers of migrants coming from EU/non-EU sources, it may not. The point is that it's up to government to be aware of how many migrants are needed to fulfill these economic needs. To have an uncontrolled situation, where anyone can, as of now, visit the UK without these kinds of background checks, is not a responsible way to govern borders.

As for non-EU migration, I think government has been absolutely insane with its policy.

You mentioned "controlling illegal immigration". I don't know why "illegal immigration" even exists in your worldview given that you previously stated that you wish to see free movement extended to the rest of the world. If that's the case, you cannot control illegal immigration by definition.




Yes.

Firstly i would like to point out that the quotation in the post i am responding to is incomplete, as you have chopped out the entire mid section of my posting

Here is my post in Full:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111784960&postcount=3163

Secondly the post you quoted is not actually answering any questions you asked - those questions you asked, i responded to in a previous post

If anyone is interested, here are my answers

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111784720&postcount=3155

Finally, and before i address your latest statement, i should like to add, that you have repeatedly ignored my questioning to you as to why your opinion on 'Immigration harming the Culture of a Nation State', is a clear paraphrase of the BNP position on 'Defending British Culture'

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111784341&postcount=3132

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111784466&postcount=3136

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111784539&postcount=3139

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111784645&postcount=3151

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111784720&postcount=3155

So those are the appropriate posts concerning our disagreement, for anyone interested. I just wouldn't want anyone to get confused as to what this conversation is based around - im sure you will agree

Do you believe in complete open borders, that anyone in the world can, at any time and without any visas, visit and stay in the United Kingdom?

As previously stated, yes i am in favor of a largely open door policy with regards to immigration. I use the word 'Largely' in that there are obvious exceptions in cases where individuals would be seeking to avoid justice for crimes, within other jurisdictions. You have now brought the word VISA into this discussion, which you havent done in previous posts directed at me - it actually clarifies further my position so i thank you for that

• Currently EU individuals can travel, at their own expense, to the United Kingdom, where they can work and set up residency - those coming from outside the EU can do so too, once they fill in appropriate forms and receive a Visa
• Your next question will be - do i favor removal of visas - yes i rather think i do but it would be something to be managed on a country by country basis - obviously no one (or very few) would have an issue with an open door policy with, for example, Australia. While some would perhaps have an issue with North Korea - now you may cheer that we are somehow in common agreement here. We are not - i have no issue with Immigration, and no wish to curb it- you clearly do

Is there a possibility that you are confusing Immigrants, with Asylum Seekers - if so let me clarify

• An immigrant is someone who wants to come to a country, like Britain, and work and contribute - They have paid for their travel and many will come with enough finances to make a start while they search for employment
• An Asylum seeker is someone who is fleeing conflict, and whos life may be at stake - they may need support from the state to begin with but ultimately may wish to work and contribute as the above - in many instances it is the state that holds up the ability for asylum seekers to work

If that is your position, then yes, that is absolutely extreme.

Let me restate that this debate originated with me highlighting the Right Wing Nature of your claims with regard to Immigration 'harming and diluting the Nation states culture' - If you would like to RETRACT THAT STANCE, then perhaps we could discuss a sensible way to ensure that a states immigration system could be improved - the renegotiation that David Cameron attempted in 2015/16 before the referendum sought to limit immigrant access to benefit for a period of years - to discourage abuse within the system - for example

You are welcome to call my views extreme. And by comparison to your views i guess i am EXTREMELY different - this is something i am quite happy about. But i refuse to be lectured to by someone who's view on 'dilution of culture by immigration' are in line with the British National Party

Respectful

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

Do you believe in complete open borders, that anyone in the world can, at any time and without any visas, visit and stay in the United Kingdom?

As previously stated, yes i am in favor of a largely open door policy with regards to immigration. I use the word 'Largely' in that there are obvious exceptions in cases where individuals would be seeking to avoid justice for crimes, within other jurisdictions. You have now brought the word VISA into this discussion, which you havent done in previous posts directed at me - it actually clarifies further my position so i thank you for that

• Currently EU individuals can travel, at their own expense, to the United Kingdom, where they can work and set up residency - those coming from outside the EU can do so too, once they fill in appropriate forms and receive a Visa
• Your next question will be - do i favor removal of visas - yes i rather think i do but it would be something to be managed on a country by country basis - obviously no one (or very few) would have an issue with an open door policy with, for example, Australia. While some would perhaps have an issue with North Korea - now you may cheer that we are somehow in common agreement here. We are not - i have no issue with Immigration, and no wish to curb it- you clearly do

I wasn't expecting this many concessions!

• "Largely open door", meaning that it must be monitored to ensure those cases that you refer to are managed.
• "Managed on a country by country basis" vis-a-vis visas.

Furthermore, you claim that you are in favour of open borders, but then moved to the elusive language of "I think I do", regarding whether it's a complete open door or not. Because if you are arguing that there are some countries who do not have access to the UK, what you are saying is this: that controls must be in place in some form. That migration must be managed.

So actually, you are now in full alignment with me - we both support managed and controlled migration, whether for crime or for specific countries; what differs us is only a matter of degree.

That's precisely what I've been pressing you to admit, and admit it you have.

As for this supposed elision between the BNP and I, I will absolutely not retract my statement. If your policies were implemented, and millions of people arrived in the UK unchecked each year, it would lead to greater levels of crime (because you cannot vet people beforehand without checks), and it would lead to social unrest, because millions per year cannot integrate effectively. Integration takes time, it doesn't happen overnight. That would indeed have a negative and diluted impact on the existing culture. Nobody is arguing for a culture to remain static. Cultures change all the time, but this change happens over a prolonged period of time. Nobody could possibly argue with that. Managed migration ensures that a culture can grow in-tune with its populations.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

It means we can do more to prevent this:





Government can do more to prevent crimes caused by European migrants. When you have a complete open door to half-a-billion people, who can arrive with a passport and nothing more, it means that prospective criminals can flow into your country.

A passport and nothing more? What's the point of requiring everyone travelling to the UK to fill in Advance Passenger Information then?

As things stand at the moment, as a full member of the EU, the British Border Force has immediate access to a database of outstanding arrest warrants and the like, and can pick someone up as soon as they turn up a an air or seaport. Post Brexit (because "Leave means Leave") they will lose that, so are you saying that every traveller to the UK will have to wait for a few weeks while the police request "background information" from 27 different foreign authorities? That'll do wonders for the British tourism industry.

And there's a bit of a hole in your logic: those of a criminal disposition have an annoying habit of not always telling the truth, or not always travelling under their own name, or not always entering through legitimate border points.

So if Brexit is going to remove resources available to the Border Force, how is this additional control supposed to be achieve ... and who's going to pay for it?

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

If your policies were implemented, and millions of people arrived in the UK unchecked each year, it would lead to greater levels of crime (because you cannot vet people beforehand without checks), and it would lead to social unrest, because millions per year cannot integrate effectively.

Where are you getting this "millions" from? That's pure Trumpian hyperbole. Net EU migration at the start of the millennium was in the order of 150-200,000, and is now down to negative-75,000. As there are more EU migrants leaving the UK than entering, how is Brexit going to "improve" that situation?

I'll leave you consider your response; I'm off out to integrate with the natives ... :pac:

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

I wasn't expecting this many concessions!

• "Largely open door", meaning that it must be monitored to ensure those cases that you refer to are managed.
• "Managed on a country by country basis" vis-a-vis visas.

Furthermore, you claim that you are in favour of open borders, but then moved to the elusive language of "I think I do", regarding whether it's a complete open door or not. Because if you are arguing that there are some countries who do not have access to the UK, what you are saying is this: that controls must be in place in some form. That migration must be managed.

So actually, you are now in full alignment with me - we both support managed and controlled migration, whether for crime or for specific countries; what differs us is only a matter of degree.

That's precisely what I've been pressing you to admit, and admit it you have.

As for this supposed elision between the BNP and I, I will absolutely not retract my statement. If your policies were implemented, and millions of people arrived in the UK unchecked each year, it would lead to greater levels of crime (because you cannot vet people beforehand without checks), and it would lead to social unrest, because millions per year cannot integrate effectively. Integration takes time, it doesn't happen overnight. That would indeed have a negative and diluted impact on the existing culture. Nobody is arguing for a culture to remain static. Cultures change all the time, but this change happens over a prolonged period of time. Nobody could possibly argue with that. Managed migration ensures that a culture can grow in-tune with its populations.

"Largely open door", meaning that it must be monitored to ensure those cases that you refer to are managed.
"Managed on a country by country basis" vis-a-vis visas.

I would have no RESTRICTIONS ON NUMBERS my frined - you would - i would not - I would keep the system with the EU as it is, and to address concerns, the UK could have agreed to David Camerons deal, which would have limited benefits to immigrants until they had live and worked in the UK for a set period of time

Furthermore, you claim that you are in favour of open borders, but then moved to the elusive language of "I think I do", regarding whether it's a complete open door or not. Because if you are arguing that there are some countries who do not have access to the UK, what you are saying is this: that controls must be in place in some form.

I would ask you not to put words in my mouth. I would allow an open door policy on immigration. You would not. You wish to limit based on quantity and quality - i would have no such restrictions on legitimate legal immigration - in terms of Visas i would make them easily available, if necessary at all which in the case of the EU they are not - and i would favor extending that to other countries - clear enough? - the only exceptions i would have would be for one or two questionable states - I gave the example of North Korea, but it could apply on a case by case - and on these situations i would simply examine those wishing to immigrate - these would be limited restrictions, and bare no resemblance to your 'Quantity/Quality' & 'Avoiding Cultural Dilution' arguments

So actually, you are now in full alignment with me - we both support managed and controlled migration, whether for crime or for specific countries; what differs us is only a matter of degree. That's precisely what I've been pressing you to admit, and admit it you have.

I stated several times already that we are most certainly not in full alignment on anything and that remains the case - you can state something again and again, but it doesn't make it so - and i fundamentally disagree with almost everything you have said

As for this supposed elision between the BNP and I, I will absolutely not retract my statement.

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

We will:

Reassert that British law comes before any other in Britain
Fly the Union Jack from all public government buildings
Make Saint George’s Day a national holiday
Uphold our hard-won right to free speech
End public funding of organisations advocating multiculturalism

From the BNP's page on British Culture -

as i am not one to put words in anyone's mouth i have lined out those pieces i believe you have not stated - but broadly speaking you are in agreement

Nothing you have said here makes any sense at all, unless viewed through an 'ethno cultural nationalist lens' - which is precisely the lenses used by the BNP and their like, when viewing society

I find it absolutely horrendous and i reject your opinion wholeheartedly - however i am delighted to continue speaking to you, as with each post you are undermining your own arguments, and highlighting yourself in a poor light- if you wish to continue please do so and i shall be happy to respond

Respectfully

moon2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Brexit is the attempt to remedy the EU-element of migration.

In terms of EU migration, the point is clear: to treat EU migration in exactly the same respect as non-EU migration

From this stance I assume you are in favour of the EU, excluding Ireland, reciprocating these rules. The result would be the deportation of a large portion of the approximately 750,000 British immigrants.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/livingabroad/april2018

A Dub in Glasgo

Fishing came up earlier as in Brexit will finally allow the UK fishermen to 'take back control', up pops a great article from Tony Connelly that explains the background and the reality of it

Hell or high water: Brexit fish talks will be most bruising

lawred2

moon2 wrote: »

From this stance I assume you are in favour of the EU, excluding Ireland, reciprocating these rules. The result would be the deportation of a large portion of the approximately 750,000 British immigrants.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/livingabroad/april2018

Don't you mean expats?

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not personally responsible for what the Tory's do or not do. They do a lot I agree with, and a lot I disagree with; an analysis I have with every government of the day, indeed every country's government.

I've already sketched out the moral argument on why it's imperative to deliver on the 2016 referendum result. I think that my argument came out relatively unscathed, still packing a powerful political punch.

What I've now been asked to do is to outline any possible benefits of Brexit. I've issued four which, at least in theory, are beneficial to the nation-state, namely:

• Controlling (not necessarily reducing) EU migration to a greater extent.
• Culture / ensuring integration is managed; eliminating division.
• Restoring coastal fishing communities; enhancing those local economies.
• Restoring law generation to the UK parliament; eliminating that centralised power.

If the Tory's, or anyone else, do not capitalize on these advantages, then shame on them.

But these are tangible benefits, there's no question about it.

Sorry, but there are plenty of questions about it. Just to deal with the issue of costal communities, as that is the closest you have come to a tangible issue, leaving the customs union and single market will not restore costal fishing communities or enhance those local economies. Tarrifs and non-tarrif barriers will negativly impact their ability to sell their catch, which is likely to devestate those communities and kill most of what is left of the fishing industry, especially small operations. Far from being a tangible benefit, your proposed form of Brexit is most likely going to cause tangible damage to those communities.

PeadarCo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Fishing came up earlier as in Brexit will finally allow the UK fishermen to 'take back control', up pops a great article from Tony Connelly that explains the background and the reality of it

It's a great eye opener into how complex things will get if the UK ever actually leaves and trade negotiations start. I get the sense from the article and stuff that's been said here that while fishing has a relatively small economic impact it is very symbolic. The symbolism gives it an out sized weight in talks. It would be interesting to know if there are similar debates on other trade items.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Government can do more to prevent crimes caused by European migrants.

Like getting rid of the European Arrest Warrant and access to the system that lets the UK police make 650 million checks annually with EU police databases.

By having tougher controls, and by deporting those who have the audacity to visit another country and commit a crime against its people, border controls ensure that high-quality talent is chosen before they enter the country; whilst doing more to prevent this type of criminal activity entering the country.

But the UK can already deport criminals and people who have been out of work for more than 6 months.


Demand more powers when the existing ones aren't being used ?

Smells like a police state power grab.
Dropping out of human rights courts ? Snoopers charter ? New Terrorism Acts most years this century ?



Most of the EU laws protect the rights of EU citizens for work, health and safety, privacy rights, food standards, consumer rights.

What benefits will the average person see from Brexit after throwing all that away ?