[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Despite my elation at the 'victory', I fear that all is not yet over. The realities also have to be faced. We are apparently looking at giving citizenship to 36,000 people at an annual cost of £1.4 billion. It really is a massive sum of money in what is already a disastrous economic climate. That does pose a problem for a government of whatever colour.
Nice to see you've swallowed the Governments line on this. At present 1,300 have applied. Why should we think that all 36,000 Gurkhas will apply? It's a ludicrous argument and the same one that suggested that millions of Hong Kong Chinese would be arriving on boats as soon as we handed Hong Kong back.
As for the figure if £1.4 billion, why should that be in any way correct? If 36,000 people came here and some of them pay taxes aren't they going to be a net contributor? I suspect this is the kind of arbitary figure that governments often pluck out of the air when it suits their argument.
Anyway I think this is all irrelevant. If Spain decided that they were going to eject all British people from Gibralltar, would we say that they couldn't return to our country at whatever cost? If Argentina attacked the Falkland Islands again (bearing in mind that this time we couldn't muster the forces to repel them) would we not take back our citizens? Cost doesn't come into it, they would come back because it's the right thing to do.
Because of their place in fighting for our country, Gurkhas should have an automatic right to British Citizenship or at least have a right to abode here. This is also about doing the right thing, it is not about money.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Despite my elation at the 'victory', I fear that all is not yet over. The realities also have to be faced. We are apparently looking at giving citizenship to 36,000 people at an annual cost of £1.4 billion. It really is a massive sum of money in what is already a disastrous economic climate. That does pose a problem for a government of whatever colour.
Nice to see you've swallowed the Governments line on this. At present 1,300 have applied. Why should we think that all 36,000 Gurkhas will apply? It's a ludicrous argument and the same one that suggested that millions of Hong Kong Chinese would be arriving on boats as soon as we handed Hong Kong back.
As for the figure if £1.4 billion, why should that be in any way correct? If 36,000 people came here and some of them pay taxes aren't they going to be a net contributor? I suspect this is the kind of arbitary figure that governments often pluck out of the air when it suits their argument.
Anyway I think this is all irrelevant. If Spain decided that they were going to eject all British people from Gibralltar, would we say that they couldn't return to our country at whatever cost? If Argentina attacked the Falkland Islands again (bearing in mind that this time we couldn't muster the forces to repel them) would we not take back our citizens? Cost doesn't come into it, they would come back because it's the right thing to do.
Because of their place in fighting for our country, Gurkhas should have an automatic right to British Citizenship or at least have a right to abode here. This is also about doing the right thing, it is not about money.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Despite my elation at the 'victory', I fear that all is not yet over. The realities also have to be faced. We are apparently looking at giving citizenship to 36,000 people at an annual cost of £1.4 billion. It really is a massive sum of money in what is already a disastrous economic climate. That does pose a problem for a government of whatever colour.
Nice to see you've swallowed the Governments line on this. At present 1,300 have applied. Why should we think that all 36,000 Gurkhas will apply? It's a ludicrous argument and the same one that suggested that millions of Hong Kong Chinese would be arriving on boats as soon as we handed Hong Kong back.
As for the figure if £1.4 billion, why should that be in any way correct? If 36,000 people came here and some of them pay taxes aren't they going to be a net contributor? I suspect this is the kind of arbitary figure that governments often pluck out of the air when it suits their argument.
Anyway I think this is all irrelevant. If Spain decided that they were going to eject all British people from Gibralltar, would we say that they couldn't return to our country at whatever cost? If Argentina attacked the Falkland Islands again (bearing in mind that this time we couldn't muster the forces to repel them) would we not take back our citizens? Cost doesn't come into it, they would come back because it's the right thing to do.
Because of their place in fighting for our country, Gurkhas should have an automatic right to British Citizenship or at least have a right to abode here. This is also about doing the right thing, it is not about money.
From my understanding of the campaign, the majority that would be eligible to live here are of working age, and as stated by Joanna Lumley and others involved, want to work full time and pay taxes in this country. Unlike the majority of the dross that arrive here illegally on the backs of lorries and clinging to Eurostars, or single mother chavs from Coventry with Croydon facelifts who feed their babies on McDonalds.
Don't think I've swallowed the Govt line. far from it, I was part of the Folkestone protest movement the first time around, neither have I argued that 36,000 will arrive on our shores. Just think that we should be a little careful about going full out with the jingoistic emotional spasms, morality and political pragmatism are not good necessarily bedfellows.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]By no means, but they will be entitled to British rate pensions. The current argument is that living in Nepal is considerably cheaper and the pensions they currently receive are considered pro rata with the British ones.
If they were on full UK rate pensions they would have more incentive to live in Napal as they would be relatively wealthy albeit in a poor country with lesser health care services or employment opportunities.
Yes, the cost does have to be factored in when making such decisions but so it should be when making other immigration or army recruitment decisions.
10% of our armed forces now come from the commonwealth and they, quite rightly, have a right to residence in the UK afterwards.
If we as a country or a govt don't want the cost of pensions and healthcare for Gurkas and their families then let's stop recruiting them into the British Army. But if we do recruit them then play fair by them and treat them the same as other non UK nationals who join up.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Don't think I've swallowed the Govt line. far from it, I was part of the Folkestone protest movement the first time around, neither have I argued that 36,000 will arrive on our shores. Just think that we should be a little careful about going full out with the jingoistic emotional spasms, morality and political pragmatism are not good necessarily bedfellows.
I'm sorry sa, you've got the wrong person, I have never been jingoistic in my entire life. Indeed none of this is about jingoism. For me this is about what is right. As Nick Clegg said in PMQs yesterday, if you are prepared to die for this country you should be allowed to live in this country. The fact that it was ever any other way is shameful. The line you appear to have taken in your original post was the one that Gordon Brown took yesterday that he supports their cause but cannot do more than the country can afford. The financial case for not going the whole way is flawed in it's technicalities and bankrupt in morality. He knows this, his moral compass must tell him this, and he looks more isolated and ludicrous over this issue as each word comes out.
MP's of the governing party don't abstain or vote against the whip enmasse very often. Indeed this is the first time since 1978 (with a minority Government at the time) that a majority of MP's have supported an opposition motion. This is momentous stuff and shows how out of touch Gordon Brown has become.
Governing is about choices. The country is borrowing squillions of pounds (of future taxes we will all have to pay) to stave off the slump. They are spending our future money all over the place (and much sadly is wasted). The overwhelming majority of the people of this country support the Gurkhas cause. So the Government can decide to do right by the Gurkhas and spend our advanced taxation on them, or something else - it's that simple. I'd hope they follow this up with action. They are not bound by this vote so lets watch carefully what they do/fail to do.
it is precisely because it is about choices that I am minded to be slightly cautious. No-one actually knows the potential costs of the cause we all support, we only have 'floodgate' figures from the Govt. I can't find any independent costings. But the money will have to come from another budget. Joanna may well have given hope to the Gurkha's, and they fully deserve it, but there are other causes which are also very much about moral issues, indeed some will literally involve life and death. They are often 'un-sexy' issues and don't get the nation fired up. I'm thinking issues such as standards in care homes, the lack of care for the elderly, children carers, mental health sufferers, restriction of cancer treatments etc etc. These are the areas that quietly get hit by budget cuts and I'm very fearful that it will happen again.
yes of course leting the Ghurkas come in is a disaster for "somewhere else" not that + 2million people coming into the Uk in the last three years isnt --- the pressure on welfare etc etc etc that was all OK wasnt it ? the fact that these people may or may not have had jobs, homes or schools well the reason we (the UK) wasnt prepared for it when our borders opened was this Labour government who said " this is a moral panic no more the 3,000 people will come from the new EEC countries" it was the Polish Council of the UK who said to HM Gov well we think there already has been 500,000 Poles come in.
How the hell have this scum bag rabble got the front to say (re the Ghurka issue) they are worried to many will come !!! f**king insult on insult on insult.
Of course Browns huge mega borrowing wont mean cuts everywhere will it ? well not untill they have lost the next election.
why the f**k should we let millions of Europeans come here and have the right to work(or not), settle etc etc etc. When people who fought to give these people these rights cant ? it was and is a total disgrace and no spin and twisting of numbers can hide that its a DISGRACE.
The Sikhs(punjabis)were great servants of this country in two world wars...... very high ratio of of VC's
What I dont get is, I never here anyone complaining about the millions of brits who have settled in Europe...Spain and Frace for example........and Oz.......NZ...............
Am I uncomfortable about the high rate of migration and its imact...yes I think I am......but I am not part of the cock world that tries to convince that muslims, or blacks or ragheads or pakis or any other grouping are the source of our ills
For the record as someoe who works with people from all nationalities (predominately English) who are in need, I can say without reservation, the immigrants I meet are polite, hard working, respectful and want what I want..that is a better life for themselves and their familes..........
Incidentally....for all those BNP that love law and order...I am staggered by the tax fraud.........illegal selling of stolen goods and the entirely hypocritial purchasing of illegal CD's and suchlike that augment and sustain the black market
wot the hell have the BNP got to do with this thread ?
usual left wing -- labour smoke screen twaddle ---- wasnt ready when the borders opened--- twated on about British jobs for British workers(illigal in the EU)--- pull numbers out of the air--- everyone is 50p better off with all the new mass imigration, untill it was pointed out they did not know the numbers coming in so how can they tell us to the nearest penny how much better off we are?
Point being and NOT ANSWERED is the people that fought for the freedoms that this country and all the new comers take (some take and dont give) for granted dont have the right to enjoy the freedoms that they fought for.
throw the BNP name around deflect the disgracefull crap that this Labour Gov is coming out with re the Ghurkas.
It seems to me that the tenor of this debate on here has taken a predictable turn for the worse. This has nothing to do with race. Also I have never voted for any party on the right of politics (even New Labour, ) ). This to do with the country showing gratitude for some incredibly brave soldiers who have fought for and their comrades died for this country in countless conflicts for many years. That's it.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]it is precisely because it is about choices that I am minded to be slightly cautious. No-one actually knows the potential costs of the cause we all support, we only have 'floodgate' figures from the Govt. I can't find any independent costings. But the money will have to come from another budget. Joanna may well have given hope to the Gurkha's, and they fully deserve it, but there are other causes which are also very much about moral issues, indeed some will literally involve life and death. They are often 'un-sexy' issues and don't get the nation fired up. I'm thinking issues such as standards in care homes, the lack of care for the elderly, children carers, mental health sufferers, restriction of cancer treatments etc etc. These are the areas that quietly get hit by budget cuts and I'm very fearful that it will happen again.
Yes but two wrongs (or ten wrongs if you want) don't make a right. Just because there are other wrongs which need righting, that should not preclude resolving the Gurkha settlement issue.
What I'm saying is that in all other circumstances commonwealth soldiers serving in the British Army have a right to abode here after four years service, yet Gurkhas under this new proposal would have to serve 20 years when the length of service of most of them is 15 years! If that's not dishonest then my pr*cks a bloater! In addition to that the figure of 36,000 is just scare mongering and allows the Government to create a false and inflated cost to allow them somehow to hide behind. Furthermore, if British citizens living abroad were repatriated, the country would find the money and make cuts elsewhere or heaven forbid, put taxes up a smidgeon.
Ultimately it's about paying our nations debt to these brave soldiers who have fought for our country. The vast majority of the people want the Government to do that, MPs voted for them to do it, it's now up to them to make the right and just choice.
This government are ignorant/arrogant swine so you can imagine just to further their tosspot status they will ignore public feeling and that of the right minded Mps of all sides who did the correct thing. I would rather have 36,000 decent proud Gurkhas able to claim UK pensions rather than some of the dross that has begged stolen and borrowed it's way into this country claiming even one penny. Not to mention our very own friendly neighbourhood slimy ratboys and sharons and their mutant offspring who squeeze the country and clutter up every suburban town centre with their ill fitting jeans and terry towling tracksuits and fake tans (not to mention the hooped earrings and stylish tatoo's) dry without ever having put anything in.
Different take on it from Dominic Lawson in the Sunday Times. And as the son of a Tory minister and former editor of the Spectator and Sunday Telegraph not really a labour leftie either.
Hush, Miss Lumley, the Gurkhas knew the deal
Dominic Lawson
Harold Macmillan said that two institutions no sane government should take on were the National Union of Mineworkers and the Brigade of Guards. A modern edition of this prime ministerial advice should now be set out, with those two institutions replaced by Joanna Lumley and the Brigade of Gurkhas.
Lumley certainly qualifies as a national institution, much loved by the entire country (or at least the male half) since 1969, when she appeared in the film Some Girls Do. Lumley remains a great beauty; yet it is her keen intellect that shines through more and more. Above both those gifts she possesses a third attribute, more important still: if one wanted to find the living embodiment of the phrase “good egg”, Lumley is that person.
I appreciate, therefore, that to defend this most unlovely government against Lumley and her latest good cause is to invite ridicule, hatred and contempt – but, still, it must be said: the Gurkhas have done very well out of this administration and have much less to complain about than at any time in their long and honourable history.
Hilary Benn had drawn the short straw, being the designated government spokesman on the BBC’s Question Time last week, required to defend his party’s treatment of the Gurkhas. He pointed out that before 2004 no government had given retired Gurkhas an absolute right to British citizenship and permanent residency – in that year Labour gave such a commitment to all Gurkhas who have served since 1997, when their main base was moved from Hong Kong to this country. While Gurkhas are still paid less than their British comrades, this government has markedly increased their pension payments: a typical Gurkha NCO retiring at 33 after 15 years’ service now receives a pension greater than the salary of a Nepalese government minister.
Yet the studio audience seemed to assume that Benn was making all this up – even the normally calm David Dimbleby became almost apoplectic as Benn tried to articulate the facts of the case. I suppose this is what happens when a government has become discredited: its ministers are disbelieved even when telling the plain truth.
Labour has indeed not acceded to Lumley’s principal request: that all Gurkha veterans and their dependants, from before the 1997 cut-off, are given absolute rights of British residency. It claims that up to 100,000 could move to Britain if it did. Lumley says, persuasively, that if a person has risked his life for this country then he (and his family) should be allowed to live here; the Daily Mail and The Sun have added that Gurkhas are all “heroes” and should be welcomed with open arms.
It’s certainly true that many Gurkhas have been heroes, as we would normally define the term. The government addressed this precise point by offering an unconditional right of citizenship to pre-1997 Gurkhas who have “received level 1-3 awards for gallantry, leadership or bravery for service in the brigade . . . [or] have a chronic/long term medical condition which is attributable to, or was aggravated by, service in the brigade”. This was not enough to satisfy 27 Labour rebels, let alone the massed Tories and Liberal Democrats, who defeated the government in a Commons vote on the matter on Wednesday.
Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, has for some time campaigned on this issue, but Conservative high command has been a very late convert to the cause. While it was characteristically clever of David Cameron to ensure that he, along with Clegg, was pictured dangerously close to the kukri-waving Lumley after the vote, Conservative hypocrisy on this issue is emetic – by the end of their period of office in 1997 only five ex-Gurkhas had been given rights of residency, as against 6,000 under the present government.
It was the Conservatives who took away the right of most residents of Hong Kong to settle in Britain: they refused to change that policy even after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 caused many of us to argue this was potentially inhumane. In 1994 Michael Howard, then home secretary, exempted only individuals who could demonstrate that they had assets of at least £1m – which obviously did not include any of the then Hong-Kong based Gurkhas. In fact Howard made easily the best Commons speech on Wednesday in favour of allowing all the pre-1997 Gurkhas in; he denied hypocrisy, arguing that when he made his dispositions about Hong Kong 15 years ago, the Gurkhas were not British subjects but citizens of Nepal.
That is precisely the government’s point. The 1947 tripartite agreement between Nepal, Britain and India (many more Gurkhas serve in the Indian army than in our own) decreed: “A Gurkha soldier must be recruited as a Nepali citizen, must serve as a Nepali citizen and must be resettled as a Nepali citizen.” You couldn’t get much clearer than that. For all the pathos of the bemedalled old Gurkhas being tearfully embraced by Lumley after the Commons vote, the fact is that these warriors would have understood the deal when they signed up. And a very good deal it was, which explains why year after year almost 20,000 young Nepalese would apply for the 230 new places available in the brigade.
A Nepalese farmer with a son in the Gurkhas recently explained to an American reporter that “to gain acceptance into the brigade is a sign of both prestige and financial success”. No Briton would consider joining the armed forces principally for enrichment – nor would we wish it to be so – but for a family otherwise consigned to the desperately insecure life of subsistence hill-farming in one of the world’s poorest countries, a guaranteed salary followed by a British Army pension at the age of 33 is a golden opportunity. Yes, we exploited these harsh facts for our own military advantage; but what was the harm done to the Nepalese recruits?
Yesterday I called Lord Bramall, who had been an officer in a Gurkha regiment and, as chief of the defence staff in 1982, overrode political objections to insist the Gurkhas play a role in the Falklands campaign. Bramall says he “loves” the Gurkhas, but in his gruff military manner he is deeply unimpressed by the campaign to put them on “all fours” with British-born soldiers: “One of the points of the arrangement was that they were cheaper to employ, as well as being outstanding soldiers. Given that they tend to have bigger families than British soldiers – think of married quarters – they are soon going to be more expensive to employ. So this militant human rights campaign for the older Gurkhas could kill the golden goose for later generations: remember, all this must come out of the defence budget.”
Bramall went on to use the “m” word that nobody dared mention in the Commons debate: he cheerfully acknowledged that his former colleagues were “mercenary soldiers – in the nicest possible way”, adding that “they fought admirably in the Falklands, as I knew they would: but I don’t think that any of them were motivated by the idea of keeping the Falklands British”.
Bramall cleared up one final point: apparently the blood-curdling cry that Lumley emitted while sandwiched between Cameron and Clegg – “Ayo Gorkhali!” – means, “The Gurkhas are coming!” That, of course, is exactly what has been worrying Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, who has been confounded by the way the most reliably antiimmigration tabloid papers have campaigned for carte-blanche admission of Gurkha families. They have argued, along with almost everybody else, that we would be much happier with these Nepalese families here than with would-be jihadists who are already here and either in prison or under surveillance. So we would; but so what?
I was on about yesterday really - following Joanna's meeting with GB, very widely reported and on main TV news, GB will need to do quite some wriggling to escape this one.
"She said Gordon Brown was a "man of integrity" and she was "absolutely confident" that an agreement could be struck now that he was intervening personally over the issue.
"I trust him," she said of the PM. "I rely on him and know he has now taken this matter into his own hands."
She said Mr Brown would bring forward proposals for reform of the existing residency regulations by the end of the month but could not disclose details on what these changes may be.
No 10 said the meeting, which took place in Parliament and was not attended by any officials, was "friendly and constructive".
So here is the answer to the conundrum:
Next week the Government should chuck out of Britain. 36,000 illegal immigrants/Islamic supporters of terrorism/bogus asylum seekers.
The following week it should allow the settlement of all Gurkhas and their families, should they wish to take up the offer.
Net increase in population; Nought, probably a minus figure.
Net increase in cost to the country, probably a minus figure again, as most fit Gurkhas would wish to work.
Totally simplistic idea? Yes! and that's why the half-wits at Westminster will not be able to fathom it out.
Her comments are 'very' clever....she's backed him into a corner by lifting everyones expectations and saying he's 'promised' to deal with this personaly....so now the ball is very firmly in HIS court.
She's a fantastic operator is our Joanna.....sly (in a very pleasant way I may add) as they come!
Joanna Lumley is the iconic embodiment of what a strong woman is, talented, articulate, stunning, admirable, well dressed and elegant. She has been in some fantastic shows, The New Avengers, Sapphire and Steel, Absolutely fabulous etc. She speaks up and uses her fame for good she is a credit to the nation. To take on this government and win the hearts and minds of the public only expands on her national treasure status. Long live the lady! (I am quite a fan)
'.......Conservative hypocrisy on this issue is emetic – by the end of their period of office in 1997 only five ex-Gurkhas had been given rights of residency, as against 6,000 under the present government.'
Above is a quote from Dominic Lawson's Sunday Times article posted by Henry.
What it shows is that the true friend of the Gurkhas is the present government.
What it also shows is how Gordon Brown’s government has failed to communicate clearly its case on this issue. It would never have happened under Tony Blair’s spin machine!
Well Mr Lawson has written an interesting piece. I say so what? What was agreed in Empire days in 1945 when the nation and the world operated with different moral standards is not right for today. Many issues were stitched up during those days, not least the partition of India and the two Pakistans. Such things would not prevail in the modern age.
The argument presented with reference to the Gurkhas being cheap and settling their families would mean they become expensive is frankly shameful, even if it does come from a military source.
The case that successive Governments especially the last Tory one failed to address the issue of settlement post the handing back of Hong Kong does not diminish for one iota, in my view, the case for rectifying the settlement rights of Gurkhas now. History is what shapes a nation but it should not be shackled by it.
Soldiers who fight for our country should be given a right of abode. I am thankful that living in these modern times, that befits a changed moral outlook. I support the cause.
Bing, that is the best post I have read on this important issue bar none. Brilliantly put and totally and utterly accurate. Please permit me to give you a virtual high five!
Comments
Nice to see you've swallowed the Governments line on this. At present 1,300 have applied. Why should we think that all 36,000 Gurkhas will apply? It's a ludicrous argument and the same one that suggested that millions of Hong Kong Chinese would be arriving on boats as soon as we handed Hong Kong back.
As for the figure if £1.4 billion, why should that be in any way correct? If 36,000 people came here and some of them pay taxes aren't they going to be a net contributor? I suspect this is the kind of arbitary figure that governments often pluck out of the air when it suits their argument.
Anyway I think this is all irrelevant. If Spain decided that they were going to eject all British people from Gibralltar, would we say that they couldn't return to our country at whatever cost? If Argentina attacked the Falkland Islands again (bearing in mind that this time we couldn't muster the forces to repel them) would we not take back our citizens? Cost doesn't come into it, they would come back because it's the right thing to do.
Because of their place in fighting for our country, Gurkhas should have an automatic right to British Citizenship or at least have a right to abode here. This is also about doing the right thing, it is not about money.
Well said Bing, fully agreed!
From my understanding of the campaign, the majority that would be eligible to live here are of working age, and as stated by Joanna Lumley and others involved, want to work full time and pay taxes in this country. Unlike the majority of the dross that arrive here illegally on the backs of lorries and clinging to Eurostars, or single mother chavs from Coventry with Croydon facelifts who feed their babies on McDonalds.
If they were on full UK rate pensions they would have more incentive to live in Napal as they would be relatively wealthy albeit in a poor country with lesser health care services or employment opportunities.
Yes, the cost does have to be factored in when making such decisions but so it should be when making other immigration or army recruitment decisions.
10% of our armed forces now come from the commonwealth and they, quite rightly, have a right to residence in the UK afterwards.
If we as a country or a govt don't want the cost of pensions and healthcare for Gurkas and their families then let's stop recruiting them into the British Army. But if we do recruit them then play fair by them and treat them the same as other non UK nationals who join up.
Its good that the Ghurkas know the affection that the British people have for them.
I'm sorry sa, you've got the wrong person, I have never been jingoistic in my entire life. Indeed none of this is about jingoism. For me this is about what is right. As Nick Clegg said in PMQs yesterday, if you are prepared to die for this country you should be allowed to live in this country. The fact that it was ever any other way is shameful. The line you appear to have taken in your original post was the one that Gordon Brown took yesterday that he supports their cause but cannot do more than the country can afford. The financial case for not going the whole way is flawed in it's technicalities and bankrupt in morality. He knows this, his moral compass must tell him this, and he looks more isolated and ludicrous over this issue as each word comes out.
MP's of the governing party don't abstain or vote against the whip enmasse very often. Indeed this is the first time since 1978 (with a minority Government at the time) that a majority of MP's have supported an opposition motion. This is momentous stuff and shows how out of touch Gordon Brown has become.
Governing is about choices. The country is borrowing squillions of pounds (of future taxes we will all have to pay) to stave off the slump. They are spending our future money all over the place (and much sadly is wasted). The overwhelming majority of the people of this country support the Gurkhas cause. So the Government can decide to do right by the Gurkhas and spend our advanced taxation on them, or something else - it's that simple. I'd hope they follow this up with action. They are not bound by this vote so lets watch carefully what they do/fail to do.
How the hell have this scum bag rabble got the front to say (re the Ghurka issue) they are worried to many will come !!! f**king insult on insult on insult.
Of course Browns huge mega borrowing wont mean cuts everywhere will it ? well not untill they have lost the next election.
why the f**k should we let millions of Europeans come here and have the right to work(or not), settle etc etc etc. When people who fought to give these people these rights cant ? it was and is a total disgrace and no spin and twisting of numbers can hide that its a DISGRACE.
What I dont get is, I never here anyone complaining about the millions of brits who have settled in Europe...Spain and Frace for example........and Oz.......NZ...............
Am I uncomfortable about the high rate of migration and its imact...yes I think I am......but I am not part of the cock world that tries to convince that muslims, or blacks or ragheads or pakis or any other grouping are the source of our ills
For the record as someoe who works with people from all nationalities (predominately English) who are in need, I can say without reservation, the immigrants I meet are polite, hard working, respectful and want what I want..that is a better life for themselves and their familes..........
Incidentally....for all those BNP that love law and order...I am staggered by the tax fraud.........illegal selling of stolen goods and the entirely hypocritial purchasing of illegal CD's and suchlike that augment and sustain the black market
Pots and Kettles...........and all that
.
usual left wing -- labour smoke screen twaddle ---- wasnt ready when the borders opened--- twated on about British jobs for British workers(illigal in the EU)--- pull numbers out of the air--- everyone is 50p better off with all the new mass imigration, untill it was pointed out they did not know the numbers coming in so how can they tell us to the nearest penny how much better off we are?
Point being and NOT ANSWERED is the people that fought for the freedoms that this country and all the new comers take (some take and dont give) for granted dont have the right to enjoy the freedoms that they fought for.
throw the BNP name around deflect the disgracefull crap that this Labour Gov is coming out with re the Ghurkas.
Yes but two wrongs (or ten wrongs if you want) don't make a right. Just because there are other wrongs which need righting, that should not preclude resolving the Gurkha settlement issue.
What I'm saying is that in all other circumstances commonwealth soldiers serving in the British Army have a right to abode here after four years service, yet Gurkhas under this new proposal would have to serve 20 years when the length of service of most of them is 15 years! If that's not dishonest then my pr*cks a bloater! In addition to that the figure of 36,000 is just scare mongering and allows the Government to create a false and inflated cost to allow them somehow to hide behind. Furthermore, if British citizens living abroad were repatriated, the country would find the money and make cuts elsewhere or heaven forbid, put taxes up a smidgeon.
Ultimately it's about paying our nations debt to these brave soldiers who have fought for our country. The vast majority of the people want the Government to do that, MPs voted for them to do it, it's now up to them to make the right and just choice.
Hush, Miss Lumley, the Gurkhas knew the deal
Dominic Lawson
Harold Macmillan said that two institutions no sane government should take on were the National Union of Mineworkers and the Brigade of Guards. A modern edition of this prime ministerial advice should now be set out, with those two institutions replaced by Joanna Lumley and the Brigade of Gurkhas.
Lumley certainly qualifies as a national institution, much loved by the entire country (or at least the male half) since 1969, when she appeared in the film Some Girls Do. Lumley remains a great beauty; yet it is her keen intellect that shines through more and more. Above both those gifts she possesses a third attribute, more important still: if one wanted to find the living embodiment of the phrase “good egg”, Lumley is that person.
I appreciate, therefore, that to defend this most unlovely government against Lumley and her latest good cause is to invite ridicule, hatred and contempt – but, still, it must be said: the Gurkhas have done very well out of this administration and have much less to complain about than at any time in their long and honourable history.
Hilary Benn had drawn the short straw, being the designated government spokesman on the BBC’s Question Time last week, required to defend his party’s treatment of the Gurkhas. He pointed out that before 2004 no government had given retired Gurkhas an absolute right to British citizenship and permanent residency – in that year Labour gave such a commitment to all Gurkhas who have served since 1997, when their main base was moved from Hong Kong to this country. While Gurkhas are still paid less than their British comrades, this government has markedly increased their pension payments: a typical Gurkha NCO retiring at 33 after 15 years’ service now receives a pension greater than the salary of a Nepalese government minister.
Yet the studio audience seemed to assume that Benn was making all this up – even the normally calm David Dimbleby became almost apoplectic as Benn tried to articulate the facts of the case. I suppose this is what happens when a government has become discredited: its ministers are disbelieved even when telling the plain truth.
Labour has indeed not acceded to Lumley’s principal request: that all Gurkha veterans and their dependants, from before the 1997 cut-off, are given absolute rights of British residency. It claims that up to 100,000 could move to Britain if it did. Lumley says, persuasively, that if a person has risked his life for this country then he (and his family) should be allowed to live here; the Daily Mail and The Sun have added that Gurkhas are all “heroes” and should be welcomed with open arms.
It’s certainly true that many Gurkhas have been heroes, as we would normally define the term. The government addressed this precise point by offering an unconditional right of citizenship to pre-1997 Gurkhas who have “received level 1-3 awards for gallantry, leadership or bravery for service in the brigade . . . [or] have a chronic/long term medical condition which is attributable to, or was aggravated by, service in the brigade”. This was not enough to satisfy 27 Labour rebels, let alone the massed Tories and Liberal Democrats, who defeated the government in a Commons vote on the matter on Wednesday.
Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, has for some time campaigned on this issue, but Conservative high command has been a very late convert to the cause. While it was characteristically clever of David Cameron to ensure that he, along with Clegg, was pictured dangerously close to the kukri-waving Lumley after the vote, Conservative hypocrisy on this issue is emetic – by the end of their period of office in 1997 only five ex-Gurkhas had been given rights of residency, as against 6,000 under the present government.
It was the Conservatives who took away the right of most residents of Hong Kong to settle in Britain: they refused to change that policy even after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 caused many of us to argue this was potentially inhumane. In 1994 Michael Howard, then home secretary, exempted only individuals who could demonstrate that they had assets of at least £1m – which obviously did not include any of the then Hong-Kong based Gurkhas. In fact Howard made easily the best Commons speech on Wednesday in favour of allowing all the pre-1997 Gurkhas in; he denied hypocrisy, arguing that when he made his dispositions about Hong Kong 15 years ago, the Gurkhas were not British subjects but citizens of Nepal.
That is precisely the government’s point. The 1947 tripartite agreement between Nepal, Britain and India (many more Gurkhas serve in the Indian army than in our own) decreed: “A Gurkha soldier must be recruited as a Nepali citizen, must serve as a Nepali citizen and must be resettled as a Nepali citizen.” You couldn’t get much clearer than that. For all the pathos of the bemedalled old Gurkhas being tearfully embraced by Lumley after the Commons vote, the fact is that these warriors would have understood the deal when they signed up. And a very good deal it was, which explains why year after year almost 20,000 young Nepalese would apply for the 230 new places available in the brigade.
A Nepalese farmer with a son in the Gurkhas recently explained to an American reporter that “to gain acceptance into the brigade is a sign of both prestige and financial success”. No Briton would consider joining the armed forces principally for enrichment – nor would we wish it to be so – but for a family otherwise consigned to the desperately insecure life of subsistence hill-farming in one of the world’s poorest countries, a guaranteed salary followed by a British Army pension at the age of 33 is a golden opportunity. Yes, we exploited these harsh facts for our own military advantage; but what was the harm done to the Nepalese recruits?
Yesterday I called Lord Bramall, who had been an officer in a Gurkha regiment and, as chief of the defence staff in 1982, overrode political objections to insist the Gurkhas play a role in the Falklands campaign. Bramall says he “loves” the Gurkhas, but in his gruff military manner he is deeply unimpressed by the campaign to put them on “all fours” with British-born soldiers: “One of the points of the arrangement was that they were cheaper to employ, as well as being outstanding soldiers. Given that they tend to have bigger families than British soldiers – think of married quarters – they are soon going to be more expensive to employ. So this militant human rights campaign for the older Gurkhas could kill the golden goose for later generations: remember, all this must come out of the defence budget.”
Bramall went on to use the “m” word that nobody dared mention in the Commons debate: he cheerfully acknowledged that his former colleagues were “mercenary soldiers – in the nicest possible way”, adding that “they fought admirably in the Falklands, as I knew they would: but I don’t think that any of them were motivated by the idea of keeping the Falklands British”.
Bramall cleared up one final point: apparently the blood-curdling cry that Lumley emitted while sandwiched between Cameron and Clegg – “Ayo Gorkhali!” – means, “The Gurkhas are coming!” That, of course, is exactly what has been worrying Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, who has been confounded by the way the most reliably antiimmigration tabloid papers have campaigned for carte-blanche admission of Gurkha families. They have argued, along with almost everybody else, that we would be much happier with these Nepalese families here than with would-be jihadists who are already here and either in prison or under surveillance. So we would; but so what?
dominic.lawson@sunday-times.co.uk
"She said Gordon Brown was a "man of integrity" and she was "absolutely confident" that an agreement could be struck now that he was intervening personally over the issue.
"I trust him," she said of the PM. "I rely on him and know he has now taken this matter into his own hands."
She said Mr Brown would bring forward proposals for reform of the existing residency regulations by the end of the month but could not disclose details on what these changes may be.
No 10 said the meeting, which took place in Parliament and was not attended by any officials, was "friendly and constructive".
Next week the Government should chuck out of Britain. 36,000 illegal immigrants/Islamic supporters of terrorism/bogus asylum seekers.
The following week it should allow the settlement of all Gurkhas and their families, should they wish to take up the offer.
Net increase in population; Nought, probably a minus figure.
Net increase in cost to the country, probably a minus figure again, as most fit Gurkhas would wish to work.
Totally simplistic idea? Yes! and that's why the half-wits at Westminster will not be able to fathom it out.
She's a fantastic operator is our Joanna.....sly (in a very pleasant way I may add) as they come!
Above is a quote from Dominic Lawson's Sunday Times article posted by Henry.
What it shows is that the true friend of the Gurkhas is the present government.
What it also shows is how Gordon Brown’s government has failed to communicate clearly its case on this issue. It would never have happened under Tony Blair’s spin machine!
1. Be you ever so high, you should never, ever, mess with Joanna Lumley.
2. Do you think there is any chance at all, that she might be a Charlton supporter?
Done.
A bit of creative thinking could easily have resolved this in my opinion and not at huge cost.
Our political system is crap filled with so much dogma and rhetoric when a little common sense would do wonders.
The argument presented with reference to the Gurkhas being cheap and settling their families would mean they become expensive is frankly shameful, even if it does come from a military source.
The case that successive Governments especially the last Tory one failed to address the issue of settlement post the handing back of Hong Kong does not diminish for one iota, in my view, the case for rectifying the settlement rights of Gurkhas now. History is what shapes a nation but it should not be shackled by it.
Soldiers who fight for our country should be given a right of abode. I am thankful that living in these modern times, that befits a changed moral outlook. I support the cause.
Please permit me to give you a virtual high five!