Politics, politics, politics

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Are you suggesting opening our boarders to Africa and India? Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought the gist of the Leave vote was to cut immigration not extend it outwards?

Im suggesting we cut the ability for free movement, and then treat everybody the same in a fair and simple system.

That way we control immigration into our country, we make it work in our favour and it is fair to all who want to come.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Im suggesting we cut the ability for free movement, and then treat everybody the same in a fair and simple system.

That way we control immigration into our country, we make it work in our favour and it is fair to all who want to come.

What is the fair and simple system? What will it look like, will we allow in EU people anyway?


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

 

[Gutter Boy]

That’s how it is now. So as we are, just ban the French, Germans, Romanians etc. Only allow work immigration for sponsor companies paying 35k plus.

Who will sweep the roads, serve sandwiches at pret and pick fruit?


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

Pretty much. EU citizens apply the same way as non-EU ones.

Automisation will do the other jobs. It's coming upon us quick. The end of full work is nigh

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

What is the fair and simple system? What will it look like, will we allow in EU people anyway?

Ive always like the idea of the Aussie set up, at least in that they attract people they need, be that nurses/fireman/whatever.

Id like that capability. Otherwise I would want every one taken on their own merits. If there is a caveat of so many non-skilled or refugee or something like that Im fine with it - the point being I dont care if EU or Non EU - everyone deserves to be treated the same.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Ive always like the idea of the Aussie set up, at least in that they attract people they need, be that nurses/fireman/whatever.

Id like that capability. Otherwise I would want every one taken on their own merits. If there is a caveat of so many non-skilled or refugee or something like that Im fine with it - the point being I dont care if EU or Non EU - everyone deserves to be treated the same.

Thing with the EU is it satisfies our requirements - always pret staff - and we get things back in return. Any of us, can go work in Paris for a bakery or for a car manufacturer in Germany, no immigration or work applications required. We also get ease of trade and access to the worlds largest customs union.

The notion we should open up our boarders to Africa and Asia to make things fair is not one that I think politicians would agree with you on. It would be a hard sell.

People always look after those that are closest. Your family, your neighbours etc that’s not racist as you imply, it’s natural.


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

 

[the dza]

Ive always like the idea of the Aussie set up, at least in that they attract people they need, be that nurses/fireman/whatever.

Id like that capability. Otherwise I would want every one taken on their own merits. If there is a caveat of so many non-skilled or refugee or something like that Im fine with it - the point being I dont care if EU or Non EU - everyone deserves to be treated the same.

I do agree with that and I have a non-EU spouse (though her visa was done before the changes were made to income requirements) so I am biased. I think there should also be a rule that if you have been a British citizen for at least 18 years, you can live here with your spouse without the income requirements etc (free movement for British citizens and their spouses in their own country, what a novel idea). But that's just my opinion.

HOWEVER -- if we're going to be worse off outside the EU, then I am willing to tolerate the relative unfairness of free movement of people. I voted to remain for both geo-political reasons and for the whole thing generally not being worth the aggravation. I can see the other side of the argument too, particularly with regards immigration, and it does grate on me when people compare non-EU migration (with it's strict criteria) with EU migration (with practically no criteria in reality) and I've made that point several times in this thread already. But I still don't feel that the leave argument overall has enough positives to it. But we did vote to leave, so let's just leave, accept free movement and stay in the EEA. Nobody is really happy, but that's life. We can then move on to the domestic political agenda with a secure economic arrangement with the EU.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Thing with the EU is it satisfies our requirements - always pret staff - and we get things back in return. We can work in Paris or a car manufacturer in Germany, no applications required. We also get ease of trade and customs freedom.

The notion we should open up our boarders to Africa and Asia to make things fair is not one that I think politicians would agree with you on. It would be a hard sell.

People always look after those that are closest. Your family, your neighbours etc that’s not racist as you imply, it’s natural.

I think people in Europe, in countries hundreds of miles away, dont count in that context. That point of view is about proximity, and it wears thin once you have to cross water. Given how easy it is to travel, why is the EU considered closer than the like of Morrocco? Or an extra couple of hours flight from Moldova or Ukraine compared to Romania?

Romania, being a similar distance as Morrocco, Tunisia and Northern Algeria.


And the notion isnt just to open our borders to make it fair. It is to effectively close our borders and then treat everyone the same, bringing in what we want/need.

If, ultimately, that is low skilled workers then fine - the point being it is fair to all and under our control.

The idea that this would mean we dont take europeans is silly, of course we would. This isnt excluding, its including.

That, from what I can see, is much more in line with what Brexiteers view on immigration than the "get rid of the bloody foreigners" line they are tarred with. And its one I would personally prefer, for sure.

 

[Rorschach]

Northern Ireland is different, because this is part of the endgame - the eventual transfer of the counties back to Ireland.

Scotland can, and hopefully will, vote for independence - and will then be able to apply to join the EU if they wish. As they will have to accept Schengen and the Eurozone (and a hard border with England and Wales), I suspect they won't go for it, but that will be for them to decide. I can see them joining Norway in the EEA though.

London's hubris is funny. They've screwed over the rest of the country for the last 25 years, monopolising all the power and investment. The rebalance sparked by Brexit will be quite a satisfying for the shires.

The endgame is not to transfer the counties back to Ireland though the process to start that slow transition will likely begin depending on the outcome of these talks. This will be a byproduct rather than the goal. Once the customs union border moves to the Irish Sea the wheels for unification will be set in motion or at least liberally greased, which is the sum of all DUP fears. Although Scotland, Wales, London and who knows else are jumping on the band wagon they don't have a land border with the EU nor indeed the associated political baggage and so have quite different motivations. Interesting times ahead.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I do agree with that and I have a non-EU spouse (though her visa was done before the changes were made to income requirements) so I am biased. I think there should also be a rule that if you have been a British citizen for at least 18 years, you can live here with your spouse without the income requirements etc (free movement for British citizens and their spouses in their own country, what a novel idea). But that's just my opinion.

HOWEVER -- if we're going to be worse off outside the EU, then I am willing to tolerate the relative unfairness of free movement of people. I voted to remain for both geo-political reasons and for the whole thing generally not being worth the aggravation. I can see the other side of the argument too, particularly with regards immigration, and it does grate on me when people compare non-EU migration (with it's strict criteria) with EU migration (with practically no criteria in reality) and I've made that point several times in this thread already. But I still don't feel that the leave argument overall has enough positives to it. But we did vote to leave, so let's just leave, accept free movement and stay in the EEA. Nobody is really happy, but that's life. We can then move on to the domestic political agenda with a secure economic arrangement with the EU.

It wont surprise you to hear I dont fully agree, but I certainly respect that position.

A friend of mine married a Belarusian, and from what I can tell her getting a visa was relatively smooth compared to most, and even that was extremely expensive, arduous and took a long long time. It really is awful.

And I do agree, if you have been here so long then fine - you get residency.

Look at the situation with @DTA 's Nigerian friend, its heartbreaking and clearly fundamentally wrong.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Thing with the EU is it satisfies our requirements - always pret staff - and we get things back in return. Any of us, can go work in Paris for a bakery or for a car manufacturer in Germany, no immigration or work applications required. We also get ease of trade and access to the worlds largest customs union.

The notion we should open up our boarders to Africa and Asia to make things fair is not one that I think politicians would agree with you on. It would be a hard sell.

People always look after those that are closest. Your family, your neighbours etc that’s not racist as you imply, it’s natural.


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

c.350,000, uncontrolled, and discriminating in favour of Europeans

or

90,000, tightly controlled, of the best and brightest from anywhere in the world

No one is suggesting open borders. Just that those who are let in are judged purely on ability.

 

[the dza]

It wont surprise you to hear I dont fully agree, but I certainly respect that position.

This line of thinking is what we are all going to have to adopt somewhat, re. Brexit. The vote to leave won in a close vote, so we leave. The way in which we leave was not on the ballot, so the so-called soft Brexit still satisfies the technicality of leaving -- the Norway option. I said it before, the Norway option leaves voters on all sides unhappy, but it is probably the only compromise that the country can live with.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I think people in Europe, in countries hundreds of miles away, dont count in that context. That point of view is about proximity, and it wears thin once you have to cross water. Given how easy it is to travel, why is the EU considered closer than the like of Morrocco? Or an extra couple of hours flight from Moldova or Ukraine compared to Romania?

Romania, being a similar distance as Morrocco, Tunisia and Northern Algeria.


And the notion isnt just to open our borders to make it fair. It is to effectively close our borders and then treat everyone the same, bringing in what we want/need.

If, ultimately, that is low skilled workers then fine - the point being it is fair to all and under our control.

The idea that this would mean we dont take europeans is silly, of course we would. This isnt excluding, its including.

That, from what I can see, is much more in line with what Brexiteers view on immigration than the "get rid of the bloody foreigners" line they are tarred with. And its one I would personally prefer, for sure.

Romania being a similar distance to Morocco is stretching your argument don't you think (also ignores your own 'crossing water' criteria)? EU peoples maybe closer genetically, but they are also closer in education levels and the stages/ development of their economies than say Morocco.

Are you saying that post Brexit we'll have some EU immigration, but we'll have a much greater proportion of non-EU immigration so it is fair?

Would you agree, that we are not gaining a lot therefore? Yes we can exert some control, but if we need immigration anyway and we know that we have a 50-50 split of EU and non-immigration currently, in real terms there won't be a lot of change will there?

Furthermore, EU migrants can go home that much easier. They can pick fruit and get on a coach back home. An Indian or Nigerian is more for life aren't they?

 

[SpurMeUp]

c.350,000, uncontrolled, and discriminating in favour of Europeans

or

90,000, tightly controlled, of the best and brightest from anywhere in the world

No one is suggesting open borders. Just that those who are let in are judged purely on ability.

Do you need to be the best and brightest to pick fruit, serve coffee and sweep streets? Automation is not going to address.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Do you need to be the best and brightest to pick fruit, serve coffee and sweep streets? Automation is not going to address.

It will. I will take most white collar jobs too, as well as blue collar ones

Or we could always retrain unemployed bankers to contribute something useful to society...

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Romania being a similar distance to Morocco is stretching your argument don't you think (also ignores your own 'crossing water' criteria)? EU peoples maybe closer genetically, but they are also closer in education levels and the stages/ development of their economies than say Morocco.

Are you saying that post Brexit we'll have some EU immigration, but we'll have a much greater proportion of non-EU immigration so it is fair?

Would you agree, that we are not gaining a lot therefore? Yes we can exert some control, but if we need immigration anyway and we know that we have a 50-50 split of EU and non-immigration currently, in real terms there won't be a lot of change will there?

Furthermore, EU migrants can go home that much easier. They can pick fruit and get on a coach back home. An Indian or Nigerian is more for life aren't they?

Morrocco was used to clearly demonstrate the flaw in your argument of "looking after our neighbours". Yes, maybe you think of Europe and you think of France, some 20-odd miles away, but the EU stretches as far as Romania - who are as neighbourly to us, distance wise, as north Africa. And only marginally less so than the like of the Ukraine.

I dont know why you are so hung up on proportions. What Im saying is that I dont care what the proportions end up as, so long as
A) the same criteria for entry is applied to all and
B) we get to choose who/what we wish to attract/prioritise (based upon skills/need etc, NOT nationality).

So no, I dont agree with the avenue you are taking this. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Parklaner81]

What would be interesting is if @nayimfromthehalfwayline @Parklaner81 or anyone else, outlined what kind of immigration the UK should have if any, and if we have immigration, where these people should come from. Would it be like the Australian points model? Would that give a preference to highly educated people who get more points?

What kind of jobs does the UK need to fill? Are they the well educated positions, or more menial jobs? Post Brexit will the UK have lots of jobs, and be attractive? With the pound lower and the Brexit sign hanging over the UK are we as attractive?

I don't claim to have all of the answers. What I'm doing is asserting a general position that immigration could be handled far better than is currently the case.

Public opinion, both in terms of the priority of the issue, and specifically that current/recent levels of immigration are too high, is overwhelming. 77% want current levels reduced ( http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ation-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/ ). That pretty much blows any other poll or referendum of recent times out of the water...!

What often puzzles me though, is that it often seems to be implied that this is somehow an extreme or unreasonable position. No one (certainly not me) is seriously saying immigration is harmful or needs to be halted. BUT it does need to be controlled. Others in this thread have made the same point, but it seems to me that the best way to do this is by addressing the free-movement element, rather than squeezing the rest-of-the-world section any further than it already is (and people have given specific examples of this in this thread). The suggestion therefore that further restrictions be placed upon RoW just to allow EU FoM to persist is, to me, just plain wrong.

The public opinion factor shows that this is a serious issue. I also think that most reasonable people would support some kind of merit-based system across the board. But this cannot be achieved while FoM persists.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Morrocco was used to clearly demonstrate the flaw in your argument of "looking after our neighbours". Yes, maybe you think of Europe and you think of France, some 20-odd miles away, but the EU stretches as far as Romania - who are as neighbourly to us, distance wise, as north Africa. And only marginally less so than the like of the Ukraine.

I dont know why you are so hung up on proportions. What Im saying is that I dont care what the proportions end up as, so long as
A) the same criteria for entry is applied to all and
B) we get to choose who/what we wish to attract/prioritise (based upon skills/need etc, NOT nationality).

So no, I dont agree with the avenue you are taking this. It makes no sense to me.

What avenue would you take immigration down? Stop it? Continue as we are with a different make up of immigrants ie less from the EU. Its funny when you start talking about realities, like where the people who will do the menial jobs come from, there doesn't seem to be a lot of answers.

Do you agree that there won't be a massive change to immigration? That we need people from non-EU and maybe EU too? Now we have a 50-50 split, what will differ is that the split will be more non-EU and we can cut the numbers if we so wish. But we may damage industry if we do. Sooooo......is it worth it? That's my question to you.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I really dont think you are appreciating my position at all, it seems you are talking about something else.

Ive explained it as well as I can, not sure its that difficult to understand - but little point carrying on while there appears to be such a disconnect.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I don't claim to have all of the answers. What I'm doing is asserting a general position that immigration could be handled far better than is currently the case.

Public opinion, both in terms of the priority of the issue, and specifically that current/recent levels of immigration are too high, is overwhelming. 77% want current levels reduced ( http://www.migrationobservatory.ox....ation-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/ ). That pretty much blows any other poll or referendum of recent times out of the water...!

What often puzzles me though, is that it often seems to be implied that this is somehow an extreme or unreasonable position. No one (certainly not me) is seriously saying immigration is harmful or needs to be halted. BUT it does need to be controlled. Others in this thread have made the same point, but it seems to me that the best way to do this is by addressing the free-movement element, rather than squeezing the rest-of-the-world section any further than it already is (and people have given specific examples of this in this thread). The suggestion therefore that further restrictions be placed upon RoW just to allow EU FoM to persist is, to me, just plain wrong.

The public opinion factor shows that this is a serious issue. I also think that most reasonable people would support some kind of merit-based system across the board. But this cannot be achieved while FoM persists.

I don't think its unreasonable. But I think you're missing the point. The real issue is public opinion vs the economy and industry. Nurses, road sweepers, fruit pickers, people to serving coffee in starbucks, nursing home workers, unskilled manual building laborers who get the worst jobs...where will the people to do these jobs come from? The UK? Should we pay more for our coffee and nursing homes to pay UK people more to work there, people who probably don't actually really want to work in these jobs anyway?

My second point is, if we need some immigration, and currently we have 50-50 appx with EU and non-EU, what great changes will we see in real terms post Brexit, and is it a price worth paying? Will it simply be a higher percentage from rest of the world as @nayimfromthehalfwayline suggests, or will we also cut the numbers and create a shortage of labor?

In essence simple questions.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I really dont think you are appreciating my position at all, it seems you are talking about something else.

Ive explained it as well as I can, not sure its that difficult to understand - but little point carrying on while there appears to be such a disconnect.

They are relatively simple questions. If you wish to duck them, I take it you don't have answers. Which is fine. We are not the Government. But whats funny is people who wish to remain are called Remoaners, yet those who are inclined to leave seem to moan about whats wrong, without offering workable solutions.