Greece is bankrupt. If they opened up to unlimited immigration they would be rolling in money pretty soon.
Yeah, because the Greek economy is identical to ours in every other way, they need exactly the same numbers and types of workers, they have the same demographics within in their indigenous population and their industries are all the same as ours.
We need immigration and we also need immigration controls - not that hard to understand.I
Successive governments of various political persuasions have failed to control immigration in any meaningful way, but they want us to believe that if we leave the EU they will suddenly reverse 20 years of ineptitude overnight. They've not bothered to use the tools at their disposal to control both EU and non-EU immigration, why would anyone believe giving them extra tools will make any difference when they most likely won't bother to use those either.
It's slightly odd that this statement doesn't make reference to Johnson breaking the Ministerial code by taking a paid job (with the Telegraph) within three months of leaving office. It's almost as if he's more interested in having an opportunity to influence people without being constrained by rules that have to be adhered to by everyone else. Surely not though..?
Greece is bankrupt. If they opened up to unlimited immigration they would be rolling in money pretty soon.
Yeah, because the Greek economy is identical to ours in every other way, they need exactly the same numbers and types of workers, they have the same demographics within in their indigenous population and their industries are all the same as ours.
So you agree immigration isn't some sort of magic elixir where everyone wins and there are no losers.
Greece is bankrupt. If they opened up to unlimited immigration they would be rolling in money pretty soon.
Yeah, because the Greek economy is identical to ours in every other way, they need exactly the same numbers and types of workers, they have the same demographics within in their indigenous population and their industries are all the same as ours.
So you agree immigration isn't some sort of magic elixir where everyone wins and there are no losers.
Whilst only secretly wishing to appear pedantic, I feel I should point out that there is a significant difference between immigration in general and a refugee crisis, fuelled by conflict.
It's not so much trying to compare apples with oranges so much as apples and house bricks.
Greece is bankrupt. If they opened up to unlimited immigration they would be rolling in money pretty soon.
Yeah, because the Greek economy is identical to ours in every other way, they need exactly the same numbers and types of workers, they have the same demographics within in their indigenous population and their industries are all the same as ours.
So you agree immigration isn't some sort of magic elixir where everyone wins and there are no losers.
Where do you get that idea? I've even pointed about a few posts above some of the common problems, just that I believe that the benefits outweigh the downsides. Plus our economy is reliant on immigration, that isn't going to change, there simply isn't the will or the forethought to make the extensive changes, planning and investment needed to completely change our economic base.
So it sounds like May’s “Chequers compromise” which would almost certainly be rejected by Brussels now won’t even make it that far after she has caved it to Brexiteers and has agreed to amendments to the Customs Bill - some of which seem to directly contradict the plan she came up with a couple of weeks ago.
Absolute shambles.
You can support it or not, but this is beyond belief. I really can't see how this shambles of a government can continue. This is people's livliehoods at stake here, whether you support Brexit or Remain. I think it is coming down to the two things - leaving with nothing or not leaving at all. What is needed, and everybody should support this, is a clarification of what people actually want via a clear second people's vote. Whatever the outcome, politicians need to be aware what the people are instructing.
I honestly think what is needed is for Labour to now back a Norway deal:
- it honours the referendum result to leave the EU - it’s achievable in the timescales (assuming we get the two year “implementation period still”) - it solves the Irish border question - it protects our economy from a cliff edge scenario - it would probably get the support of enough Tory remainer MPs and Lords to pass through Westminster - it’s a proposal that the EU will actually accept (unlike Chequers which was never going to be accepted anyway) - it won’t provide an end to free movement
This should have been the approach from the start, of the nation is still unsatisfied then we can change the relationship in the future but this now all pointing towards a no deal scenario which will be an absolute disaster.
Labour are playing it long on this because they are worried about the views of the Labour voting hard brexiteers mainly in the north. It's your last bullet point that is their big conundrum
I agree, freedom of movement is the big issue in all of this. It stems back to Cameron’s “I’ll reduce immigration to tens of thousands” things a few years ago which legitimised the idea that immigration is bad.
If I were Labour leader I would change the lens and re-cast immigration as a good thing that creates a net benefit to our country economically, socially and culturally. Not only is it true but that way you no are no longer shackled to Cameron’s mistake meaning you are now free to come to a sensible deal with the EU which keeps the four freedoms intact.
Great post. Immigration is an overwhelmingly good thing in my opinion.
what !!! did you not see the net migration figures yesterday. 286,000 last year. Thats over 1 million in 4 years.....so by 2030 thats another 3.5 million. And then thats without them having any offspring (vast majority of people entering are of child rearing age).
And before you say it, yes more were from non-EU countries......probably from the Commonwealth which we can't stop...
It is madness & it has to stop.
"Probably from the Commonwealth which we can't stop". Has this really been written by someone on the leave side of the debate?
Golfie, do you think we have control over migration from the Commonwealth, or not? Because if we don't have control over migration from the Commonwealth, why have you voted for the same level of control for people from the EU?
The whole point of the migration element of the referendum campaign was to ensure that we no longer were forced to adopt freedom of movement, despite its many and obvious benefits. People who thought we had too much inward migration from the EU were encouraged to vote leave so that we had "control" over which EU migrants were allowed to come here - to the same extent that we "control" migration from, say, the Commonwealth. Did you *really* vote leave in order to be able to apply migration laws to EU citizens that we apply to Commonwealth citizens, while at the same time thinking that we can't control migration from Commonwealth countries? If so, that's a World Cup level of cognitive dissonance.
Migration is "madness" and "has to stop"? Have you considered where we would be without a permanent influx of working-age migrants, looking to earn money? Have you considered the effect on - say - the NHS staffing levels (we have 93,000 unfilled vacancies in the NHS now - imagine how many there would be if foreigners were no longer allowed to work in the NHS)? Or food production - do farms rely on British workers to harvest crops or migrants, do you think? Or football - do you think it would have a positive effect on football in England if the "madness" of migration were to stop? Are all forms of public transport in this country operated exclusively by British people, or do we rely on migrants? Care homes are going to be in greater demand in future - are all care home staff British, or are there foreign-born workers that look after our sick and elderly?
What have migrants ever done for us?
1. Migrants are more likely to be working age. Generally net immigration leads to an increase in the labour force and increases the potential output capacity of the economy. 2. Migrants will increase the total spending within the economy. So net migration leads to an increase in real GDP 3. Net migration creates a more flexible labour market - people move to where the jobs are. 4. Net migration helps to reduce the dependency ratio. If migrants are of working age, they will pay income tax, VAT – but will not be claiming benefits. 5. Foreign students contribute £2,500,000,000 a year in fees. 6. A growing population (which is the case in the UK either with or without net migration) requires more housing, roads, schools and other infrastructure. This construct relies on foreign workers. And foreign workers' contributions to the treasury - through income tax and VAT - help pay for the necessary work. 7. Immigrants arriving since 1999 are 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than native-born British people. And we are also able to deport anyone arriving fro the EU who is unable to support themselves after four months. In other words, immigrants are a lower burden to the state than the native population. 8. Please don't say migration is madness and has to stop.
The last thing I am going to take you to task on is your comment "that's without them having offspring". As if it's some kind of crime or affront for people who are in the UK, working and earning a living to have the audacity to have children. And that you're vilifying yet another group of people - a group that are born, bred and raised in the UK. I'm fiercely proud that people want to settle in this country. And I think it's a very, very good thing indeed that we have migrants wanting to have children and to bring them up here. I think your singling out of a group of people who - through no choice of theirs - have been born in the UK, like I was and maybe like you were. That's beyond the pale.
For the record I didn't say migration per se was madness, what I was referring to was the madness that is the total freedom of movement from 27 EU countries. That it was has to stop. If we want 200,000 trained doctors & nurses to help the NHS then great, recruit them from where ever we need to....EU, Commonwealth or Timbuktu for all I care, but not allow 200,000 transient anybodys with no skills or means of supporting themselves. That is what is madness.
Great post Chizz - I wish the Remain campaign would have used these strong economic (and common sense) arguments for immigration.
Sadly so many people have an entrenched negative view of immigration despite its obvious benefits and are happy to just be fed misinformation and hysteria about it by the tabloid press.
I think some people did - Brexiters just chose to ignore them and get their information from the side of a bus instead.
Anyway - I am increasingly getting the idea that golfie and his reasons for desperately wanting to get out of the EU are tied in with his job and the EU's clamping down on shady offshore financial dealing. Or he would be coming back with something (anything?) to counter his ripped-to-shreds claims about immigration, among other things, surely?
sorry, was busy with my shady financial dealings with Moggy & Farage. tosser.
Great post Chizz - I wish the Remain campaign would have used these strong economic (and common sense) arguments for immigration.
Sadly so many people have an entrenched negative view of immigration despite its obvious benefits and are happy to just be fed misinformation and hysteria about it by the tabloid press.
I think some people did - Brexiters just chose to ignore them and get their information from the side of a bus instead.
Anyway - I am increasingly getting the idea that golfie and his reasons for desperately wanting to get out of the EU are tied in with his job and the EU's clamping down on shady offshore financial dealing. Or he would be coming back with something (anything?) to counter his ripped-to-shreds claims about immigration, among other things, surely?
sorry, was busy with my shady financial dealings with Moggy & Farage. tosser.
Good luck here mate but if you haven't worked it out yet, every thing you say gets twisted around to what they believe of how they think..... Ps don't mention the 'I' word as you will be deemed a racist, even a nazi fuckwit one on a good day if you are lucky... Hence this is why its now a forum of pat on the back or arse licking each other for them.
Great post Chizz - I wish the Remain campaign would have used these strong economic (and common sense) arguments for immigration.
Sadly so many people have an entrenched negative view of immigration despite its obvious benefits and are happy to just be fed misinformation and hysteria about it by the tabloid press.
I think some people did - Brexiters just chose to ignore them and get their information from the side of a bus instead.
Anyway - I am increasingly getting the idea that golfie and his reasons for desperately wanting to get out of the EU are tied in with his job and the EU's clamping down on shady offshore financial dealing. Or he would be coming back with something (anything?) to counter his ripped-to-shreds claims about immigration, among other things, surely?
sorry, was busy with my shady financial dealings with Moggy & Farage. tosser.
Great post Chizz - I wish the Remain campaign would have used these strong economic (and common sense) arguments for immigration.
Sadly so many people have an entrenched negative view of immigration despite its obvious benefits and are happy to just be fed misinformation and hysteria about it by the tabloid press.
I think some people did - Brexiters just chose to ignore them and get their information from the side of a bus instead.
Anyway - I am increasingly getting the idea that golfie and his reasons for desperately wanting to get out of the EU are tied in with his job and the EU's clamping down on shady offshore financial dealing. Or he would be coming back with something (anything?) to counter his ripped-to-shreds claims about immigration, among other things, surely?
sorry, was busy with my shady financial dealings with Moggy & Farage. tosser.
Good luck here mate but if you haven't worked it olut yet, every thing you say gets twisted around to what they believe of how they think..... Ps don't mention the 'I' word as you will be deemed a racist, even a nazi fuckwit one on a good day if you are lucky... Hence this is why its now a forum of pat on the back or arse licking each other for them.
There is no such thing as irony in Chippy world is there...
Great post Chizz - I wish the Remain campaign would have used these strong economic (and common sense) arguments for immigration.
Sadly so many people have an entrenched negative view of immigration despite its obvious benefits and are happy to just be fed misinformation and hysteria about it by the tabloid press.
I think some people did - Brexiters just chose to ignore them and get their information from the side of a bus instead.
Anyway - I am increasingly getting the idea that golfie and his reasons for desperately wanting to get out of the EU are tied in with his job and the EU's clamping down on shady offshore financial dealing. Or he would be coming back with something (anything?) to counter his ripped-to-shreds claims about immigration, among other things, surely?
sorry, was busy with my shady financial dealings with Moggy & Farage. tosser.
Insults rather than replies then. QED.
You don't think your accusation was in any way insulting?
So it sounds like May’s “Chequers compromise” which would almost certainly be rejected by Brussels now won’t even make it that far after she has caved it to Brexiteers and has agreed to amendments to the Customs Bill - some of which seem to directly contradict the plan she came up with a couple of weeks ago.
Absolute shambles.
.
I honestly think what is needed is for Labour to now back a Norway deal:
- it honours the referendum result to leave the EU - it’s achievable in the timescales (assuming we get the two year “implementation period still”) - it solves the Irish border question - it protects our economy from a cliff edge scenario - it would probably get the support of enough Tory remainer MPs and Lords to pass through Westminster - it’s a proposal that the EU will actually accept (unlike Chequers which was never going to be accepted anyway) - it won’t provide an end to free movement
This should have been the approach from the start, of the nation is still unsatisfied then we can change the relationship in the future but this now all pointing towards a no deal scenario which will be an absolute disaster.
Labour are playing it long on this because they are worried about the views of the Labour voting hard brexiteers mainly in the north.
I agree, freedom of movement is the big issue in all of this. It stems back to Cameron’s “I’ll reduce immigration to tens of thousands” things a few years ago which legitimised the idea that immigration is bad.
If I were Labour leader I would change the lens and re-cast immigration as a good thing that creates a net benefit to our country economically, socially and culturally. Not only is it true but that way you no are no longer shackled to Cameron’s mistake meaning you are now free to come to a sensible deal with the EU which keeps the four freedoms intact.
Great post. Immigration is an overwhelmingly good thing in my opinion.
what !!! did you not see the net migration figures yesterday. 286,000 last year. Thats over 1 million in 4 years.....so by 2030 thats another 3.5 million. And then thats without them having any offspring (vast majority of people entering are of child rearing age).
And before you say it, yes more were from non-EU countries......probably from the Commonwealth which we can't stop...
It is madness & it has to stop.
"Probably from the Commonwealth which we can't stop". Has this really been written by someone on the leave side of the debate?
Golfie, do you think we have control over migration from the Commonwealth, or not? Because if we don't have control over migration from the Commonwealth, why have you voted for the same level of control for people from the EU?
The whole point of the migration element of the referendum campaign was to ensure that we no longer were forced to adopt freedom of movement, despite its many and obvious benefits. People who thought we had too much inward migration from the EU were encouraged to vote leave so that we had "control" over which EU migrants were allowed to come here - to the same extent that we "control" migration from, say, the Commonwealth. Did you *really* vote leave in order to be able to apply migration laws to EU citizens that we apply to Commonwealth citizens, while at the same time thinking that we can't control migration from Commonwealth countries? If so, that's a World Cup level of cognitive dissonance.
Migration is "madness" and "has to stop"? Have you considered where we would be without a permanent influx of working-age migrants, looking to earn money? Have you considered the effect on - say - the NHS staffing levels (we have 93,000 unfilled vacancies in the NHS now - imagine how many there would be if foreigners were no longer allowed to work in the NHS)? Or food production - do farms rely on British workers to harvest crops or migrants, do you think? Or football - do you think it would have a positive effect on football in England if the "madness" of migration were to stop? Are all forms of public transport in this country operated exclusively by British people, or do we rely on migrants? Care homes are going to be in greater demand in future - are all care home staff British, or are there foreign-born workers that look after our sick and elderly?
What have migrants ever done for us?
1. Migrants are more likely to be working age. Generally net immigration leads to an increase in the labour force and increases the potential output capacity of the economy. 2. Migrants will increase the total spending within the economy. So net migration leads to an increase in real GDP 3. Net migration creates a more flexible labour market - people move to where the jobs are. 4. Net migration helps to reduce the dependency ratio. If migrants are of working age, they will pay income tax, VAT – but will not be claiming benefits. 5. Foreign students contribute £2,500,000,000 a year in fees. 6. A growing population (which is the case in the UK either with or without net migration) requires more housing, roads, schools and other infrastructure. This construct relies on foreign workers. And foreign workers' contributions to the treasury - through income tax and VAT - help pay for the necessary work. 7. Immigrants arriving since 1999 are 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than native-born British people. And we are also able to deport anyone arriving fro the EU who is unable to support themselves after four months. In other words, immigrants are a lower burden to the state than the native population. 8. Please don't say migration is madness and has to stop.
The last thing I am going to take you to task on is your comment "that's without them having offspring". As if it's some kind of crime or affront for people who are in the UK, working and earning a living to have the audacity to have children. And that you're vilifying yet another group of people - a group that are born, bred and raised in the UK. I'm fiercely proud that people want to settle in this country. And I think it's a very, very good thing indeed that we have migrants wanting to have children and to bring them up here. I think your singling out of a group of people who - through no choice of theirs - have been born in the UK, like I was and maybe like you were. That's beyond the pale.
For the record I didn't say migration per se was madness, what I was referring to was the madness that is the total freedom of movement from 27 EU countries. That it was has to stop. If we want 200,000 trained doctors & nurses to help the NHS then great, recruit them from where ever we need to....EU, Commonwealth or Timbuktu for all I care, but not allow 200,000 transient anybodys with no skills or means of supporting themselves. That is what is madness.
No wonder I think you have ulterior motives, Golfie. Chizz just detailed the benefits of all migration, and you still come back with that, like you didn't read a word he just wrote? He explained the need for people with no skills and the likelihood of them claiming benefits and you write "...transient anybodys with no skills or means of supporting themselves.". If you are disputing the facts, then counter them, don't just carry on claiming your obviously erroneous beliefs are still valid because you they suit your personal narrative, it makes you look a bit silly.
The problem with immigration is that whilst it is beneficial overall, it is hard to convince people who are struggling or not doing as well as they have done of that fact. Immigrants are different to us culturally and are easy targets. You only have to study history to see how people can be manipulated to blame everything on those different to themselves. What tends to happen also, is that understandably when a large number of immigrants come into a country, they tend to stick together and create new communities that people of other cultures can resent.
I dislike UKIP, but there did used to be an honesty about it when it said it wasn't interested whether immigration was beneficial or not - too many people were coming into the country and destroying British culture. I disagree with them and that sentiment, but I accept there are places where culture changes because of large numbers of immigrants. There are many drivers for culture changing over time outside of immigration. I think this can be a good thing, but if everybody is encouraged to hate, then it doesn't end well.
I don't think this is just a British problem, and the rest of Europe are experiencing the same issues and there will come a point where the EU - if it still there - will restrict immigration or at least give member states the power to do so. For that reason, I think it makes sense for a government to have power over numbers coming in. The problem is not the immigrants - without them, who will keep the NHS and social care going? Who will pick the fruit? But the rabble rousers. I think the Conservative party is decent, but it has too many people in it that are not. When the arguments were being lost in the referendum, the immigration card was played by people who should have had better standards. They were not bothered about immigration - Rees Mogg has 23 million better reasons for personally wanting Brexit, but they played a card that should never be played.
We can't have uncontrolled immigration and I don't think we're arguing about that but we do need immigration if we are to keep the country afloat. Using the spectre of immigration to stir up the population is bad politics and benefits nobody - do we really want people to attack each other?
There are racist bigots in every country and we really don't need to swell their ranks by clumsy dialogue over immigration. Most people's ancestors arrived to this country as immigrants and many were given a less than friendly welcome.
It's easy for politicians to blame the country's problems on immigration - it's a tactic that has been used for centuries to cover up their own failings.
British culture is constantly evolving whether we like it or not and changes decade by decade. A multi-cultural society is a challenge and politicians do need to address concerns where issues exist - there is no point pretending they don't exist.
Your perspective varies greatly depending on your social and economic standing - London is frequently at odds with much of the rest of the country.
Great post Chizz - I wish the Remain campaign would have used these strong economic (and common sense) arguments for immigration.
Sadly so many people have an entrenched negative view of immigration despite its obvious benefits and are happy to just be fed misinformation and hysteria about it by the tabloid press.
I think some people did - Brexiters just chose to ignore them and get their information from the side of a bus instead.
Anyway - I am increasingly getting the idea that golfie and his reasons for desperately wanting to get out of the EU are tied in with his job and the EU's clamping down on shady offshore financial dealing. Or he would be coming back with something (anything?) to counter his ripped-to-shreds claims about immigration, among other things, surely?
sorry, was busy with my shady financial dealings with Moggy & Farage. tosser.
Insults rather than replies then. QED.
You don't think your accusation was in any way insulting?
No, it was a carefully worded suggestion, and one that golfie has done nothing to dispute. All he has to do is say "Sorry old son, you are barking up the wrong tree, I sell pensions and mortgages and that's it...".
For the record I didn't say migration per se was madness, what I was referring to was the madness that is the total freedom of movement from 27 EU countries. That it was has to stop. If we want 200,000 trained doctors & nurses to help the NHS then great, recruit them from where ever we need to....EU, Commonwealth or Timbuktu for all I care, but not allow 200,000 transient anybodys with no skills or means of supporting themselves. That is what is madness.
If there were "total freedom of movement from 27 EU countries", I think I would agree that it could be described as "madness". But it isn't, as you know.
Within the EU, we have freedom of movement for goods, services, capital and labour, between the 28 member states.
Note that it's "between" the 28 member states and not, as you and others often like to portray it "from" 27 EU countries. Freedom of movement is two-way. Freedom of movement for goods (which I assume you would think is a good think), services (ditto), capital (ditto) and labour. So where are you on the freedom of movement for labour? As a refresher, this is the opportunity for someone to be able to move to London from Paris to work as easily and with as few restrictions as someone moving from Edinburgh to London. In order to work. So, when EU migrants move to the UK to work, we all benefit. But when they move and cannot support themselves, they can be removed. You know this, golfie. Because it's been pointed out over and over again.
I don't know whom you're referring to with your remark about "200,000 transient nobodys" (sic). If someone is here to work, I hope you're bright enough to see the benefit, even if you're not "happy" (for whatever reason) that they're here. And if someone is here not working, I am sure you can see that they can be sent back to their origin country.
Let me ask you about your requirement for 200,000 doctors. You say that "if we want 200,000 trained doctors and nurses... recruit them from wherever we need to". What would happen in golfie world, where a nurse comes to the UK, works for the NHS, gets promoted, becomes a trainer and is head hunted for a job training people in healthcare? Has that nurse broken the law? Will he need to be detained? Sent home? If so, we have to assume that anyone has to be able to prove that they have the right to live and work here. If migrants have to show some paperwork to prove they have the right to carry out the work they do, doesn't that mean everyone has to? (Because if only migrants have to show paperwork, then any migrant will simply claim they're not a migrant). Are we likely to be able to recruit as easily as we do now, when we have to tell applicants that they're not allowed to change career? Who chooses the 200,000 figure? And how often is it changed? Can we afford the administrative burden, red-tape and paperwork? Why would you move to another country that might reduce your rights to stay at any time?
I have shown you that migration works in the best economic interest of the country, that people coming to the UK without means of supporting themselves can be removed and that there are unintended consequences of limiting the migration to people within narrowly-defined industries. So what is it that you're *really* worried about, with regards to migration?
You know that shift in public opinion on Brexit that has not really shown up yet? I agree that the polls have only shown a marginal shift, up to now......
You know that shift in public opinion on Brexit that has not really shown up yet? I agree that the polls have only shown a marginal shift, up to now......
Isn’t it more astonishing that 45% of the population would prefer to leave the EU without a deal? Brexit at all costs, Brexit no matter the cost is a general impression I get of a huge swaths of the population outside of the Charlton Life echo chamber.
Also, that poll shows support for staying in the EU and leaving the EU (with or without a deal) at 50:50 - basically where we were on that morning in June 2016. Given the number of catastrophes that have taken place or are predicted to come it is amazing how little public opinion has swayed.
You know that shift in public opinion on Brexit that has not really shown up yet? I agree that the polls have only shown a marginal shift, up to now......
Isn’t it more astonishing that 45% of the population would prefer to leave the EU without a deal? Brexit at all costs, Brexit no matter the cost is a general impression I get of a huge swaths of the population outside of the Charlton Life echo chamber.
Also, that poll shows support for staying in the EU and leaving the EU (with or without a deal) at 50:50 - basically where we were on that morning in June 2016. Given the number of catastrophes that have taken place or are predicted to come it is amazing how little public opinion has swayed.
I'm not surprised that people are digging their heels in over this. When people vote Brexit and the establishment is doing its best to deliver Bremain, they're not being persuaded otherwise, they feel they're having their vote ignored.
Funny how the people are sticking to their guns, yet the government dither, vacillate and arse things up.
I think the point Faisal Islam is making is that there is no mandate for a no deal Brexit. None whatsoever. And within the "Leave Brexit with negotiated deal" camp, I believe there will be some who actually don't want to leave but think that trying to remain will set off a shitshow fired up by the fundamentalists. I am almost in that camp myself.
I'm not surprised that people are digging their heels in over this. When people vote Brexit and the establishment is doing its best to deliver Bremain, they're not being persuaded otherwise, they feel they're having their vote ignored.
Funny how the people are sticking to their guns, yet the government dither, vacillate and arse things up.
The Prime Minister is heading up negotiations to leave the EU. Her Cabinet has signed up to a plan in which the UK leaves the EU. Some Ministers, after the Cabinet agreed unanimously to support the deal have quit, in order to support a different plan to leave the EU.
The Prime Minister set up a Government Department exclusively to facilitate leaving the EU. And she triggered Article 50 in order to facilitate exit negotiations.
The Prime Minister has agreed to pay a sum in the order of £39bn to exit the EU. All bills placed before the House of Commons and the House of Lords have been passed in order to pave the way towards leaving. A timetable has been agreed and a leaving date has been set. No Acts have been refused Royal Assent.
So the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Government, Parliament and Her Majesty the Queen are all delivering a process which sees the UK leaving the EU.
Please explain what you mean by "the establishment is doing its best to deliver Bremain".
I think the point Faisal Islam is making is that there is no mandate for a no deal Brexit. None whatsoever. And within the "Leave Brexit with negotiated deal" camp, I believe there will be some who actually don't want to leave but think that trying to remain will set off a shitshow fired up by the fundamentalists. I am almost in that camp myself.
I don't understand how any honest person can claim for there to be a mandate.
Comments
I genuinely don't think he realises that it isn't.
It's like me saying "this is what a labour supporter is" whenever there are anti Semitic tropes being wheeled out.
It's not so much trying to compare apples with oranges so much as apples and house bricks.
I dislike UKIP, but there did used to be an honesty about it when it said it wasn't interested whether immigration was beneficial or not - too many people were coming into the country and destroying British culture. I disagree with them and that sentiment, but I accept there are places where culture changes because of large numbers of immigrants. There are many drivers for culture changing over time outside of immigration. I think this can be a good thing, but if everybody is encouraged to hate, then it doesn't end well.
I don't think this is just a British problem, and the rest of Europe are experiencing the same issues and there will come a point where the EU - if it still there - will restrict immigration or at least give member states the power to do so. For that reason, I think it makes sense for a government to have power over numbers coming in. The problem is not the immigrants - without them, who will keep the NHS and social care going? Who will pick the fruit? But the rabble rousers. I think the Conservative party is decent, but it has too many people in it that are not. When the arguments were being lost in the referendum, the immigration card was played by people who should have had better standards. They were not bothered about immigration - Rees Mogg has 23 million better reasons for personally wanting Brexit, but they played a card that should never be played.
There are racist bigots in every country and we really don't need to swell their ranks by clumsy dialogue over immigration. Most people's ancestors arrived to this country as immigrants and many were given a less than friendly welcome.
It's easy for politicians to blame the country's problems on immigration - it's a tactic that has been used for centuries to cover up their own failings.
British culture is constantly evolving whether we like it or not and changes decade by decade. A multi-cultural society is a challenge and politicians do need to address concerns where issues exist - there is no point pretending they don't exist.
Your perspective varies greatly depending on your social and economic standing - London is frequently at odds with much of the rest of the country.
Within the EU, we have freedom of movement for goods, services, capital and labour, between the 28 member states.
Note that it's "between" the 28 member states and not, as you and others often like to portray it "from" 27 EU countries. Freedom of movement is two-way. Freedom of movement for goods (which I assume you would think is a good think), services (ditto), capital (ditto) and labour. So where are you on the freedom of movement for labour? As a refresher, this is the opportunity for someone to be able to move to London from Paris to work as easily and with as few restrictions as someone moving from Edinburgh to London. In order to work. So, when EU migrants move to the UK to work, we all benefit. But when they move and cannot support themselves, they can be removed. You know this, golfie. Because it's been pointed out over and over again.
I don't know whom you're referring to with your remark about "200,000 transient nobodys" (sic). If someone is here to work, I hope you're bright enough to see the benefit, even if you're not "happy" (for whatever reason) that they're here. And if someone is here not working, I am sure you can see that they can be sent back to their origin country.
Let me ask you about your requirement for 200,000 doctors. You say that "if we want 200,000 trained doctors and nurses... recruit them from wherever we need to". What would happen in golfie world, where a nurse comes to the UK, works for the NHS, gets promoted, becomes a trainer and is head hunted for a job training people in healthcare? Has that nurse broken the law? Will he need to be detained? Sent home? If so, we have to assume that anyone has to be able to prove that they have the right to live and work here. If migrants have to show some paperwork to prove they have the right to carry out the work they do, doesn't that mean everyone has to? (Because if only migrants have to show paperwork, then any migrant will simply claim they're not a migrant). Are we likely to be able to recruit as easily as we do now, when we have to tell applicants that they're not allowed to change career? Who chooses the 200,000 figure? And how often is it changed? Can we afford the administrative burden, red-tape and paperwork? Why would you move to another country that might reduce your rights to stay at any time?
I have shown you that migration works in the best economic interest of the country, that people coming to the UK without means of supporting themselves can be removed and that there are unintended consequences of limiting the migration to people within narrowly-defined industries. So what is it that you're *really* worried about, with regards to migration?
Also, that poll shows support for staying in the EU and leaving the EU (with or without a deal) at 50:50 - basically where we were on that morning in June 2016. Given the number of catastrophes that have taken place or are predicted to come it is amazing how little public opinion has swayed.
Funny how the people are sticking to their guns, yet the government dither, vacillate and arse things up.
The Prime Minister set up a Government Department exclusively to facilitate leaving the EU. And she triggered Article 50 in order to facilitate exit negotiations.
The Prime Minister has agreed to pay a sum in the order of £39bn to exit the EU. All bills placed before the House of Commons and the House of Lords have been passed in order to pave the way towards leaving. A timetable has been agreed and a leaving date has been set. No Acts have been refused Royal Assent.
So the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Government, Parliament and Her Majesty the Queen are all delivering a process which sees the UK leaving the EU.
Please explain what you mean by "the establishment is doing its best to deliver Bremain".