brexit?!!?

[thalbergmad]

The immigration points system is a refreshing long  overdue slice of common sense.

[ahinton]

The immigration points system is a refreshing long  overdue slice of common sense.

It is already being identified as otherwise by many employers who need people to work in positions that attract smaller salaries but who fear being unable to secure sufficient people already living in UK to fulfil those posts.

The exceptions that are supposedly being made for temporary fruit-pickers will almost certainnly have to be extended to accommodate many others in different jobs that don't pay very highly and, as many employers and others have already noted, there will almost certainly end up being so many exceptions as to render this policy meaningless.

The minimum pay qualification has already been reduced by several thousand pounds p.a. and other previously planned restrictions have already been lifted; however, the care industry, the lower end of NHS, restaurant staff and many other positions just won't get filled at all unless more and more restrictions are lifted, which they will have to be in order to curb adverse effects on the UK economy.

There are also proposed curbs on people immigrating into UK to start businesses even when they possess a good grasp of English and have much needed skills such as plumbing, building, &c.; that will do UK no favours.

For these and many other reasons, I don't see the proposals currently being put forwartd as having much of a future, but let's see how various pressures on government from a variety of sources impact upon what it currently proposed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Entirely predictable.

[ahinton]

Entirely predictable.

I agree. Employers naturally worry about their futures and it is indeed predictable that they, as well as their representative organisations, are taking the view that they do; when they can no longer find sufficient people to accept positions that they offer, their businesses will inevitably suffer and some might go under altogether. Does anyone want that?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Employers will need to wean themselves off cheap foreign Labour. It is that simple.

[ahinton]

Employers will need to wean themselves off cheap foreign Labour. It is that simple.

With that I agree in principle but, if they can't afford to pay people already here - UK or foreign - decent amounts and therefore can't secure sufficient employees, their businesses risk being adversely affected. Quite a few businesses are already offering positions at or above the national minimum wage but have been able only to attract people from outside UK to take them up.

I run a business and you don't, which does not of course mean that you're capable of less understanding of the situation than I am, but if you ran one and couldn't get people - UK or foreign - already in UK to fill employed positions that you're offering at the salaries that your business could afford and were therefore dependent upon immigrants, what would you do? OK, it doesn't affect me because I don't employ anyone but it's not about me anyway.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I do run a business albeit my current industry has not been affected by cheap foreign imports.
Bosses have been  enriching themselves on cheap EU Labour and it is the British working class that have suffered.
I am aware that the NHS requires such Labour, but the health services in Poland for instance has suffered horrific shortages as their nurses are over here.

[ahinton]

I do run a business

Apologies; I had not realied this.

albeit my current industry has not been affected by cheap foreign imports

Nor has mine, but that's a different subject to that of immigrant workers, surely?

Bosses have been enriching themselves on cheap EU Labour and it is the British working class that have suffered.

It's not as simple as that. Employers have been employing people from many countries outside UK, not only the other 27 EU member states; if British workers won't do the jobs that those foreign workers do for whatever reason/s (salary or anything else), one can hardly blams employers for seeking employees from elsewhere as the alternative would be for the work not to get done - and it's pretty obvious where that would lead.
I accept that, were there far more economic equitability between UK and all those countries from whence its businesses draw some of their labour forces, there would be less of a problem, but I don't see how anything could be done about that.

I am aware that the NHS requires such Labour, but the health services in Poland for instance has suffered horrific shortages as their nurses are over here.

Fair comment, but ask yourself
a) why those of them that are here have come to UK to work and
b) how they are able to secure employment as nurses in UK?
The answers, respectively, are obviously
a) they get better paid in UK than in Poland and
b) because enough people already in UK (be they foreign or not) don't take up NHS nursing positions.

Where I do agree with you is that there are issues here; where I don't understand your thinking is purely in terms of how these can be solved in the interests of all involved.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

We are a very small and ever increasingly overcrowded Island. When the floodgates were open to Eastern Europe, the Labour Party anticipated 13,000 would come. It is now in excess of a million and rising.
This is unsustainable and only morons like the unelectable Diane Abbot would think otherwise.
We have a chronic housing shortage and insufficient roads to cope with the extra traffic. I sold my car a couple of years ago as there is simply no point in having one.
It is entirely sensible to introduce a points based sysytem and expect those coming here to have a job, make a contribution to the Health Service and be barred from claiming benefits.
Bosses who have lined their pockets on cheap EU Labour will have to take a cut and start paying real wages.

[ahinton]

We are a very small and ever increasingly overcrowded Island.

That's somewhat misleading; certainly, some parts of England are quite densely populated, but others, as well as almost all parts of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are not.

When the floodgates were open to Eastern Europe, the Labour Party anticipated 13,000 would come. It is now in excess of a million and rising.
This is unsustainable and only morons like the unelectable Diane Abbot would think otherwise.

At least Diane Abbott is unelectable; indeed, much the same could now be said of the entire Labour Party. That said, people have come to UK from all over the world, not just Eastern Europe; in fact, most immigrants even from elsewhere in Europe have tended to come from western and west central Europe - Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czechia, Ukraine, Moldova, Albania, Belarus and, above all, Poland - rather than from eastern Europe.

Poles represent by far the highest single group of immigrants to UK but this is nothing new; it has been the case for decades and now some of them are choosing in any case to return to Poland.

It is also worth noting that the UK population would still rise even if all immigration to it ceased.

We have a chronic housing shortage and insufficient roads to cope with the extra traffic.

Both of those are painfully true, of course, but only because there have never been remotely adequate housing or road building programmes - and it's not just the roads; our rail network is for the most part antiquated and flights between two points of which neither is London remain all too few. Moreover, there remain many buildings that stand unused or gravely underused that could be turned into housing without the need for new builds.

It is entirely sensible to introduce a points based sysytem and expect those coming here to have a job, make a contribution to the Health Service and be barred from claiming benefits.

The trouble with a points based system is that it immediately invites exceptions, corruptions and administrative errors in its application, as the Australians (for example) have found to their cost. Many people wanting to come to UK do have - or at least can get - a job and the government has now reduced the minimum earning capacity from £30K+p.a. to a somewhat more reasonable sum, but there remain too many obstacles in the way of their immigration; moreover, those who are self-employed have a far harder time of it still.

Another problem with a points based system is its short-sightedness in approaching the issue from one end only and ignoring the impact of stringent immigration restrictions upon businesses that need to employ people but cannot get those already in UK to take up positions that they offer.

Bosses who have lined their pockets on cheap EU Labour will have to take a cut and start paying real wages.

There have certainly been instances of this, albeit not only with cheap EU labour but cheap labour from all over the world and I agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. That said, there has for years been a statutory national minimum wage and many employers offering it or even above it still can't get existing UK residents to take up positions, so what do they do?

If your answer is (as it seems to be) that there needs to be a whopping increase in the national iminimum wage in order to force employers to offer considerably more, some will downsize or wind up their businesses and those that don't will put up the prices for their goods ans services, thereby giving rise to rampant inflation; also, more such employers will downgrade their offers of employment into the murky world of the gig economy and offer zero hours contracts rather than "proper" jobs wherever they can get away with it.

I agree that there needs to be some form of control on legal immigration but I believe it to be far more important to try to curb illegal immigration as far as possible. In so saying, I note from a number of sources that immigrants to UK contribute more value to the economy - including payment of taxes - than they take out in state and other benefits.

That so many employers and employers' representative groups as well as trade and professional unions are expressing grave concerns about what government is currently proposing seems to me to be sufficient evidence that those proposals simply will not get through and be made to work and, if so, its electoral success might well be short-lived.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I agree that there needs to be some form of control on legal immigration but I believe it to be far more important to try to curb illegal immigration as far as possible. In so saying, I note from a number of sources that immigrants to UK contribute more value to the economy - including payment of taxes - than they take out in state and other benefits.

That may well be the case if it simply includes the ones we know about, but when the wage earners start to invite over their entire families who are not wage earners, they become instant dependants.
When we take into account the ones we dont know about who operate in the black market, all the good is eroded.
Many parts of the UK are indeed less densely populated, but these are not the areas where immigrants arevattracted to.
I have lost count of the fields and counttyside where i played as a child, which are now houses.
Thrre has to be a limit of how many we take in, and i think that was reached long ago.

[ahinton]

That may well be the case if it simply includes the ones we know about, but when the wage earners start to invite over their entire families who are not wage earners, they become instant dependants.

Fair comment up to a point but, were you to go abroad to take up permanent employment and had a family to consider, would you not feel that you'd like to take them with you (provided, of course, that you'd be capable of supporting them if they, too, cannot find jobs)?

When we take into account the ones we dont know about who operate in the black market, all the good is eroded.

Black marketeering is usually criminal and it can be prosecuted provided that it can first be uncovered, but immigrants to UK - either those already here of those wishing to come here - have no monopoly on black marketerring; there's plenty of it that either doesn;t involve or is not undertaken by immigrants.

Many parts of the UK are indeed less densely populated, but these are not the areas where immigrants arevattracted to.

No, but people already here aren't attracted to them in the main either, because they won't find much work there until some kind of infrastructure that includes business founding and relocation is developed therein.

I have lost count of the fields and counttyside where i played as a child, which are now houses.

But people have to live somewhere and, as I stated earlier, the UK population increases is by no means down to immigrants alone.

Thrre has to be a limit of how many we take in, and i think that was reached long ago.

There have to be some controls, I agree, but their design and implementation must take account of the benefit to UK's economy that most (I don't say all) immigrants bring.

If business have to slim down and/or go under because they cannot source enough immigrants to fill posts - regardless of what they pay - which people already here do not wish to take up, the UK economy will suffer.

Likewise, if employers are all forced to pay fortunes for employees that their businesses cannot reasonably afford, those business will either suffer as a direct consequence or survive by getting away with imposing massive increases in the prices of the goods and services that they supply, which will put some of those goods and services out of the reach of poorer people and increase the rate of inflation.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I see the Eurotwats are arguing over contributions to their new budget.
Strangely, nobody seems to want to pay any more.

[ahinton]

I see the Eurotwats are arguing over contributions to their new budget.
Strangely, nobody seems to want to pay any more.

Likewise, Gove & Co. are arguing about which terms UK will accept and which it won't, implying 10 months before the current transition period deadline that a no-deal Brexit is probably being planned regardless; is it therefore any wonder that Brexit is being plagued by arguing on and between both sides?

What an expensive mess!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

No deal is a powerful bargaining tool that was previously denied us due to a Remoaner Parliament.
No deal means no money.

[ahinton]

No deal is a powerful bargaining tool that was previously denied us due to a Remoaner Parliament.
No deal means no money.

How can it be a "barganing tool" when the UK government is not actually using it as one in its forthcomgin negotiations with EU?

No deal means no money all right! For UK! Many Remain supporters, Leave supporters and abstainers / those who express no opinion on UK's EU membership do not advocate a "no deal" Brexit; I am not remotely surprised by that, not least because no one voted for a "no deal" Brexit (and no one could have done in any case as this was not an option on the voting papers for the public opinion poll on the subject).

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You speak with such certainty, i wonder if somerimes you  think you are Prime Minister.

[ahinton]

You speak with such certainty, i wonder if somerimes you  think you are Prime Minister.

If I did, I would certainly not speak with certainty! Moreover, the prospect of being a back bench MP, let alone Prime Minister, would appal me! That said, what I wrote illustrated and drew attention to uncertainty, so I speak with nothing of the kind!

Anyway, the next phase of the UK/EU "negotiations" officially gets under way today and, whilst they are as plagued with uncertainty as have been the "negotiatons" to date, one thing above all is certain, namely that the cost of this exercise will be immense; the salaries and expenses of the 100 UK representatives alone will hardly be insignificant (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51657084 ).

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The negotiations are simple. Give us the Canada Style Deal we require or you can get stuffed and you won't get a penny.
The EU will be bankrupt when the next wave of economic migrants get waved through.
So much for migrants being a benefit to the Country. The Greeks don't seem to think so.

[ahinton]

The negotiations are simple. Give us the Canada Style Deal we require or you can get stuffed and you won't get a penny.

But what particular "Canada style deal"? Has everyone involved in this within UK agreed to a particular one to submit to EU? If so, I'd not noticed!

Were negotiations to be conducted in the manner that you suggest (which of course they aren't, otherwise they'd not even be negotiations), why weren't they completed 2-3 years ago and why have no less than 100 people now travelled from UK to Brussels to participate in the next phase thereof?

The EU will be bankrupt when the next wave of economic migrants get waved through.

So much for migrants being a benefit to the Country. The Greeks don't seem to think so.

I do not think that this can reasonably be brought into the discussion.

I presume you to refer largely to refugees and would-be refugees from Syria of whom there are probably at least 3.5m, all of whom will not be wanting to settle in Greece anyway; many might want to go to Germany, France and UK.

Turkey has now decided not to stop such people attempting to cross its border with Greece; whichm being so small a country, it will be in no position to stop that number of people crossing the border into it.

You omit to distinguish between economic migrants and refugees. How many of those trying to escape the carnage in Syria (where people are as likely to be shot while attempting to escape as they are while not attempting to escape - that's if CoVid19 doesn't get them first) are "economic migrants" and how many are genuine refugees who are trying to flee the country in fear of their lives having lost their homes and most of their possessions?

That there is a problem there cannot be denied, of course, but it has nothing to do with UK/EU negotiations, although UK and EU might be bankrupted if most of Syria's refugees relocate to Western Europe.

All that said, you earlier reference expressed dismay at the amount of countryside in UK that's disappeared since you were very young; whilst I don't doubt that it has done just that - inevitably - this cannot be attributed to immigrants.

I remain curious as to what you believe to be the maximum number of people that UK is able and can be expected to support?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

 It may well have reached that number. My old school fields are now being dug up for houses. Take away the million or so EU migrants out of the equation and perhaps this may not have happened.
The War in Syria appears to be all but over. There is no war in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and many of the other places these people are coming from. Most are economic migrants and the Greeks have rightly shut their borders.
They are mainly Muslims and should be trying to flee to Muslim Countries as opposed to trying to infest the EU with their Barbaric beliefs.

[ahinton]

It may well have reached that number.

What number? In so saying, you have omitted to state what you believe to be the maximum number of people that UK is capable of supporting and can be expected to support.

My old school fields are now being dug up for houses. Take away the million or so EU migrants out of the equation and perhaps this may not have happened.
The War in Syria appears to be all but over. There is no war in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and many of the other places these people are coming from. Most are economic migrants and the Greeks have rightly shut their borders.

Lots of places are being dug up for housing and by no means only in UK. The world population continues to rise and, should developments in stem cell and other regenerative therapies as well as cures for the world's ills be successful, it will rise beyong 10bn hrough 20bn and beyond; the question then would be not merely how many people can UK support but how many the planet as a whole can support. The population rise is everywhere, not just among immigrants/emigrants.

The war in Syria is anything but over, sadly; so are the wars and other conflicts in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Democratic(!) Republic of Congo and elsewhere. Mass displacement of citizens is just one inevitable consequence.

Whilst I accept that people from other countries besides Syria are also tyring to escape to other countries, especially European ones, I was referring specifically and solely to those refugees trying to escape Syria, not least because
a) those are the ones to which Turkey has now turned a blind eye where its border with Greece is concerned and
b) there are reckoned to be some 3-4m of them, far more than in any other nation from which such escapes are being attempted.

There is no way that, in the event of so large a proportion of them being allowed into Turkey in order that they may continue their journey into Western Europe unhindered by the Turkish authorities, the Greeks will be able to stop them entering Greece as the second leg of such a journey.

They are mainly Muslims and should be trying to flee to Muslim Countries as opposed to trying to infest the EU with their Barbaric beliefs.

That's as maybe but not all Muslims try to do this; there are plenty already in UK, for example, who do no such thing.

Moreover, why should Muslims only live in Muslim countries? Would you expect the same of Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, atheits, &c. It's worth remembering that quite a few countries now regarded as predominantly Muslim have not always been so.

That said, to where else would other would-be escapees from Syria be expected to try to go? Its other four borders are with Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, of which the first three are far smaller than itself and the last would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

A mass population exodus from anywhere is bound to raise problems for other nations but, when countries descend into the kinds of state that is the case in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, &c., usually as a result of wars and conflicts, there often comes a point where life there becomes not merely intolerable but impossible.

Anyway, the topic of this thread is not Syrian refugees but Brexit, the latest round of humungously expensive negotiations towards (or more likely away from) which have just commenced this week and - who knows? - their already parlous chances of success could well be thrown into yet further disarray and perhaps severely delay by the progress of a certain virus that is apolitical and knows and respects no national borders...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Escapees from Syria should go back to Syria. Most of the Country is now war free and they should be sent home.
If not, they should be encouraged to settle in Muslim Countries where they will most likely fit in a lot easier.
However, they will not as Muslim run Countries are shot and there are no benefits to claim.
Hopefully, the EU has learned the lesson from the Last influx and will do everything it can to repel all illegals. If this is a problem for You, perhaps you could take in the odd family at your place.
Over the last 10 years, the population growth of Poland has sometimes been negative and that is not surprising if there are 600000 over here and only 6000 UK nationals in Poland. This is unsustainable and needs to stop.
Again, please feel free to put up a few at your place.
The points based system is long overdue.

[ahinton]

Escapees from Syria should go back to Syria. Most of the Country is now war free and they should be sent home.

Why would they be expected to do that? What would be the point of their escape attempts? How could they live there? The country is largely desecrated; it is not war free and is unlikely to become so as long as Assad remains in "charge" and there remians Russian and other external interference.

If not, they should be encouraged to settle in Muslim Countries where they will most likely fit in a lot easier.

Encouraged by whom and how - and which Muslim countries? France?

However, they will not as Muslim run Countries are shot and there are no benefits to claim.

Do you seriously believe that these refugees who are as likely to be killed for trying to escape as for not trying to do so are endeavouring to get out of their home country just in order to claim another country's state benefits?

Hopefully, the EU has learned the lesson from the Last influx and will do everything it can to repel all illegals. If this is a problem for You, perhaps you could take in the odd family at your place.

It is a problem for everyone. It's not about learning lessons and trying to repel refugees; the sheer numbers render that ipossible. Just imagine if Chinese citizens finally got to have enough of the repressive régime under which they live and decide to try to quit, the exodus would not be a few million but a few hundred millions. Who would be able to repel that and how?

Over the last 10 years, the population growth of Poland has sometimes been negative and that is not surprising if there are 600000 over here and only 6000 UK nationals in Poland. This is unsustainable and needs to stop.
Again, please feel free to put up a few at your place.
The points based system is long overdue.

Some Polish people are now leaving UK to return to Poland. In the end, nothing can be guaranteed as "sustainable". Borders and the perceive and often mythical national sovereignty will eventually become a thing of the past; unstoppable mass population movements for a wide variety of reasons will ultimately ensure that. For the record, that is not a satement about EU, Brexit or anything so limited.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I am glad your attitude didn't exist during the Blitz or London would still be rubble. You do not run away, you stay and rebuild.
Most of these illegal immigrants are young men who have deserted their families for a better life and that tells me all I need to know about the kind of cowards they are.
I would happily blow their boats out of the water. They have no right of entry and so far, a good job is being done at keeping them out.
If you want to take in a few, you can pay for their keep.

[ahinton]

I am glad your attitude didn't exist during the Blitz or London would still be rubble. You do not run away, you stay and rebuild.

Not just London; what about Dresden? In either case, what remained of the country's infrastructure simply cannot be compared to a devastated Syria.

That said, whilst a good aim is of course to rebuild, people can't do that when they have no means to do so and are being shot on sight.

Most of these illegal immigrants are young men who have deserted their families for a better life and that tells me all I need to know about the kind of cowards they are.

Many of those trying to leave Syria have lost all members of their families; if trying to leave in such circumstances represents cowardice, then your view of cowardice is very different to that of most people.

I would happily blow their boats out of the water. They have no right of entry and so far, a good job is being done at keeping them out.

Well, it's a good thing that you won't have the means to do that. WHilst you are correct about rights of entry, those fall away in such situations; we're not talking here of a mere few hundred or even a few thousand but possibly some 3-4m; those who managed to avoid getting shot trying to escape are hardly going to be stopped by a few hundred Greeks and, frankly, the Greeks will in time probably turn the same blind eyes as the Turks are doing when they realise that most of these refugees are aiming not to settle in Greece but to move on farther north and west.

Just imagine, for example, what would happen were there to be a revolution in the oppressed China in which even only 10% of its population tried to leave the country; you would then be faced with almost 150m people seeking refuge elsewhere. How easy would that be to stop?

Once again, though, what does all of this have to do with Brexit?

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I am glad your attitude didn't exist during the Blitz or London would still be rubble. You do not run away, you stay and rebuild.
Most of these illegal immigrants are young men who have deserted their families for a better life and that tells me all I need to know about the kind of cowards they are.
I would happily blow their boats out of the water. They have no right of entry and so far, a good job is being done at keeping them out.
If you want to take in a few, you can pay for their keep.

A walking compendium of rightwing tabloid drivel tropes there, Thal.

[ahinton]

A walking compendium of rightwing tabloid drivel tropes there, Thal.

I'm afraid that this is how I read it, too; it has consistency if little else.

What also seems to be missing from this "assessment" is due recognition of the fact that, whereas during the time of the blitz and the bombing of Dresden in WWII, UK was at war with Germany, Syria is not at war not with another state but within itself, albeit with Russian and other interference - in other words a Civil War - but wars are wars, whichever type they are. Details of numbers of dead in the conflict there vary, but information on this is - including numbers of foreign death - is found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War .

That said, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/world/middleeast/turkey-syria-assault.html is one reliable source which confirms that Turkey is now not only turning a blind eye to Syrian refugees entering it and crossing the border into Greece but also involving itself directly in the conflict; this will likely render the chances of any rebuilding and restoration of infrastructure even smaller than they have been until now and, as Turkey looks to be joining in, so might other neighbouring and nearby states.

As to the suggestion of taking in refugees at my personal expense, the only viable riposte is to ask what those who share the views expressed here by Thal would, could or should do were they
a) living in Syria either as citizens, immigrants or temporary foreign workers or
b) living in an UK that had for some years been the victim of mass deaths and damage to property, the economy et al as has been the case in Syria.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Typical left wing tabloid drivel.
Thank goodness you immigrant loving lefties have no power.

[ahinton]

Typical left wing tabloid drivel.

So the New York Times, BBC and others that have reported similarly are all "left wing tabloids" that publish only "drivel"? I don't think so!

Thank goodness you immigrant loving lefties have no power.

I have never suggested that I love all immigrants to all countries. I have, however, confirmed to you more than once that I am not of the left. I do not have or seek governmental power; I am not an MP.

The fact nevertheless remains, whether you like it or not, that if hundreds of thousands of people cross the border into Turkey, then crosss another into Greece and then cross more into other countries,, there's very little that the Greeks can do to stop them.

It is also high time that you learned to distinguish between migrants and would-be migrants who are classifiable as economic ones only and those who are genuine refugees; from the way in which you write, it would appear that you do not even countenance the very concept of refugeeism and, as such, I sincerely hope that you never find yourself to have become a genuine refugee.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is you that cannot distinguish. Most of these immigrants are young men capable of looking after themselves.  Old people, women and children who could be classified as refugees are in the minority. Those that have fled Countries or areas where there is no immediate threat are economic immigrants
This time around, I do not see many making it to these shores and if they do, I will happily direct them to your place.

[ahinton]

It is you that cannot distinguish.

On the contrary, I have just done exactly that and, to remind you, the distinction is between between on the one hand economic migrants/would-be migrants and, on the other, displaced/dispossessed/bereaved people the removal of whose human rights has made them genuine refugees; if you cannot or will not accept that plainly obvious and widely accepted distinction, there would appear to be no help for you.

Most of these immigrants are young men capable of looking after themselves.  Old people, women and children who could be classified as refugees are in the minority. Those that have fled Countries or areas where there is no immediate threat are economic immigrants.

Where is your evidence for that?

On what grounds do you seek to imply an assumption that there are nothing like the 3-4m displaced and dispossessed people in Syria that so many sources have cited? How come you know better than all of these?

Indeed, it might not be a bad idea for you to go there, albeit with suitable protection, and discover the extent of the damage and devastation to buildings, infrastructure and economy and the parlous circumstances in which so many people there now eke out an existence as a direct consequence of Civil War.

I made no mention of "Countries" in the present context; I referred solely to Syria, whose years long Civil War shows no sign of abating.

Are you seeking to claim that Syria is nevertheless an "area where there is no immediate threat"? If so, you are by implication damning almost all news coverage from and about that country as fake - and you are doing so without having been there and because it seems to suit your own heavily biased personal agenda.

This time around, I do not see many making it to these shores

Which time around? You seem to be suggesting that there has been a lull in migration that is now over, which is nonsense.

I did not in any case mention "these shores". Those displaced refugees from Syria who manage to enter EU from Turkey will not all want to come to UK, although of course some will; there will be no shortage of them who will seek to settle in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, France, Italy, Spain et al.

if they do, I will happily direct them to your place.

In order for you to do that they would first have to come and consult you for advice; in all honesty, how likely is that?!...

Once again, though, what does any of this have to do with Brexit?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It has everything to do with Brexit. As we have now left, we should have no obligation to take in any of the crap they decide to let in.
Instead of me going to Syria, perhaps you should go to Luton or Boston to see how immigrants have destroyed communities and turned parts of those towns into no go areas.

[ahinton]

It has everything to do with Brexit. As we have now left, we should have no obligation to take in any of the crap they decide to let in.
Instead of me going to Syria, perhaps you should go to Luton or Boston to see how immigrants have destroyed communities and turned parts of those towns into no go areas.

We are in a transition period, as well you know and, to date, there have been no material changes to any UK legislation, including immigration; there won't be any before 31 December this year and very possibly not then either, especially if the virus takes hold as this will scupper negotiations more effectively even that UK's negotiating incompetence.

There are plenty of other "no-go areas" that are not the result of the presence of immigrants. Also, given the number of immigrants to UK (probably at least 4.5m), there are many places where immigrants live that are not "no-go areas" and your attempts at comparing the "no-go area" status of Luton and Boston (Lincs.) with those of, say, Damascus and Aleppo - to say nothing of Idlib - stretches credibility way beyond the point at which it snaps, not least (and indeed not especially) because the number of Syrians desperately trying to escape from those two English towns is noticeably smaller that that of Syrians trying to escape from those three Syrian ones...

Please confirm in what ways the ongoing Syrian Civil War has to do with Brexit; it is not even as though Syria is yet applying to join EU...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It has everything to do with Brexit. As we have now left, we should have no obligation to take in any of the crap they decide to let in.
Instead of me going to Syria, perhaps you should go to Luton or Boston to see how immigrants have destroyed communities and turned parts of those towns into no go areas.

I used the possibility of your visiting Syria as an illustration, not a recommendation (I would not wish to embrace the prospect of your travelling there and would be fearful of your fate were you to do so). The differences are immense, as I'm sure you know.

That said, UK's taxpayer-funded "leftie, Guardian-reading"(?!) National Audit Office ( https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-cost-of-eu-exit-preparations/ - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51762243 ) shows how much UK's government has spent on preparations for a Brexit that has to date gotten no farther than the beginning of the transition stage beyond which it might never go; the extent to which that stacks up against the cost of UK's statutory payments to EU (which have yet to cease) illustrates a worthwhile lesson in the art of governmental folly and will come to be much more so if and when it all either fails altogether or is postponed indefinitely for any reason/s including the virus that knows and respect no borders whatsoever.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

As a Christian ( non practiding), it might well be safer for me to visit Syria as opposed to Boston or Luton.
I think.you need to get out more and start to visit some of the places where the extant Brits feel like foreigners in there own Country, but you won't as it would destroy your lefty stance on immigration.
It appears the first round of negotiations has not gone well. Unlike Corbyn, Boris will not sell people down the river.
Hope you are enjoying the huge majority Tory government and the fact we are leaving the EU.

[ahinton]

As a Christian ( non practiding), it might well be safer for me to visit Syria as opposed to Boston or Luton.
I think.you need to get out more and start to visit some of the places where the extant Brits feel like foreigners in there own Country, but you won't as it would destroy your lefty stance on immigration.

I have been to Luton (though not to Boston. I don't think that it would be absolutelly vital for me to visit Boston not to accept your point.

It appears the first round of negotiations has not gone well. Unlike Corbyn, Boris will not sell people down the river.

Boris will; Corbyn won;t because he;s not PM and will soon not be the leader of the soon to be defunct Labour Party.

Hope you are enjoying the huge majority Tory government and the fact we are leaving the EU.

Then your hopes are dashed on both fronts; the former won't last long once enough people realise that they've been sold down the river and are worse off and the latter might still not happen, especially if the progress of the virus imposes restrictions and possibly substantial delays on the negotiations.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

If that is the case, let us hope that the virus ceases all immigration and kills a few on the way.

[ahinton]

If that is the case, let us hope that the virus ceases all immigration and kills a few on the way.

I neither know nor care who "us" might be but, as I have mentioned before, the virus knows and respect no borders and likewise respects neither the races or nationalities of its victims than it does which country they happen to be in or are travelling to or form.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Indeed, but we would be protecting our own people by stopping all illegal immigration.
You don't know what diseases these buggers are carrying.
Best send them to Rich Muslim Countries.

[ahinton]

Indeed, but we would be protecting our own people by stopping all illegal immigration.
You don't know what diseases these buggers are carrying.
Best send them to Rich Muslim Countries.

If your concern is to protect people coming from any other country to UK, you would surely have also to include all legal immigrants, all visitors whether on vacation or working and all UK residents who have travelled to other countries.

You cannot in any case "send" anyone anywhere from UK unless they're in UK in the first place. And why only rich Muslim countries and not poor ones? And why Muslim countries anyway? I cannot imagine many Chinese taking to being sent to any of them!

In any event, my reference to the virus in this thread was purely to illustrate that its progress could well hinder and delay Brexit negotiations even worse than would negotiating incompetence.

In the meantime, nothing seems to have changed in UK; no changes in legislation, no new Customs rules and regulations (and I can get around those that might otherwise affect me quite legally if and when they ever come in), same burgundy passport, same rights of travel and so on.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Try renewing your passport and see what you get then.
Not much has changed but it will. When we are no longer subject to EU Ccurt rulings then i for one will be celebrating.
I understand the Chancellor is scrapping the Tampon tax. Could not of done that when we were part of the EU and tied to their stupidity.

[ahinton]

Try renewing your passport and see what you get then.
Not much has changed but it will. When we are no longer subject to EU Ccurt rulings then i for one will be celebrating.
I understand the Chancellor is scrapping the Tampon tax. Could not of done that when we were part of the EU and tied to their stupidity.

I don't need to renew my passport; it has almost 10 years to run.

Whether and when anything might change is open to speculation, What you celebrate is up to you. UK will, however, remain indefinitely subject to ECHR rulings, just as will all other EU member states.

I agree wholeheartedly about the so-called "tampon tax"; the rest of EU should follow UK's example in this. Though an unrepentant Remain supporter, I've never been one to support the notion that UK should just accept everything that EU throws at it or does; EU is supposed to be a partnership of member states, after all - and this tax is effectively a tax on women and, as such, a grave insult. EU should take the opportunity on International Womens' Day to scrap this absurd tax.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The EU does not listen to reason. I feel we must have got somewhere in removing ourselves from their interference in order to make this tax adjustment.
I believe that OUR Prime Minister intends to remove us from Euro Law so that British Law against take precedence. I wish him success and look forward to the day when it doesn't take 10 years to deport a terrorist.
Huge respect to the Greek Coast Guards who fired shots at a boat full of illegals, battered the inhabitants with rods and then sent it back to Turkey.
Common sense at last and I expect the residents of Lesbos are applauding.
Keep up the good work.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

the residents of Lesbos

Very carefully worded 

[thalbergmad]

One has to be aware of the auto correct as well.

[thalbergmad]

Express: Sturgeon issues threat to PM as she says extra funds 'inevitable' amid coronavirus crisis.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1252403/Nicola-Sturgeon-latest-news-SNP-NHS-funding-coronavirus-cases-Scotland-update

Get stuffed Jimmy.

[ahinton]

The EU does not listen to reason.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it might not.

Frankly, it has been said that the removal of this tax is likely to save most women only around £40 during their lifetime, so it's hardly a big deal, although I still maintain that, as a matter of principle, the tax needs to be removed in UK and the rest of EU.

I feel we must have got somewhere in removing ourselves from their interference in order to make this tax adjustment.

But that has not been done in principle; UK is still in an indefinite transition period and it has sensibly taken the initiative to make this one small but important move.

I believe that OUR Prime Minister intends to remove us from Euro Law so that British Law against take precedence. I wish him success and look forward to the day when it doesn't take 10 years to deport a terrorist.

How long do you think that it takes to deport terrorists from elsewhere?

First of all, it is necessary to find, charge and convict them.

Secondly, it might be better to incarcerate those who are justly convicted of being terrorists than to deport them to another country where they're likely to continue their terrorist activities and, in so saying, do remember that a terrorist does not have to be located in any particular country in order to commit acts of terrorism against people anywhere.

That said, how many EU laws have gone against or otherwise contradicted or contravened UK ones during the 40+ years of UK's EU membership? Hardly any!

Huge respect to the Greek Coast Guards who fired shots at a boat full of illegals, battered the inhabitants with rods and then sent it back to Turkey.

And you think that firing a few shots across the bows will discourage up to 3-4m people from getting our of Syria? There are plenty of other routes to Western Europe out of there besides Turkey and Greece in any case, although Turkey and Greece is probably the shortest.

Common sense at last and I expect the residents of Lesbos are applauding.

Keep up the good work.

Not a hope in any of those particulars. When large numbers of disposessed and disaffected people find themselves with no practical option but to try to escape their location, it is very hard to stop them; imagine being in such a situation yourself, powerless to rebuild anything and under constant threat both from your own government and those of other nations muscling in on your country's Civil War.

The refugee problem, whether in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Democratic(!) Republic of Congo or anywhere else will go on and on until and unless it can be stopped in those places; what's to be done about it?

I repeat that this has nothing directly to do with Brexit, since no country from which refugees are attempting to escape is an EU member state.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is where they are attempting to escape to that is relevant.
If they have escaped from Syria and made it to Turkey (which is a safe Country), they are refugees. If they then try to get into Greece, they are illegal immigrants and should be repelled. You can only be considered a refugee at the 1st safe Country you arrive at. If you try to get into another Country, you are an economic chancer. Hopefully, this is simple enough for you to understand.
45 immigrants were arrested by the Greek authorities trying to penetrate part of the border. None were Syrian and all were from safe Countries. They were beaten up, had all their possessions taken and sent back. A wasted opportunity as they should have been shot.

[ahinton]

It is where they are attempting to escape to that is relevant.
If they have escaped from Syria and made it to Turkey (which is a safe Country), they are refugees. If they then try to get into Greece, they are illegal immigrants and should be repelled. You can only be considered a refugee at the 1st safe Country you arrive at. If you try to get into another Country, you are an economic chancer. Hopefully, this is simple enough for you to understand.
45 immigrants were arrested by the Greek authorities trying to penetrate part of the border. None were Syrian and all were from safe Countries. They were beaten up, had all their possessions taken and sent back. A wasted opportunity as they should have been shot.

As I stated, there are plenty of other routes to Western Europe from Syria and doubtless these will be taken due advantage of especially if the Greek one becomes problematic. 45 is, however, as nothing to the many hundreds of thousands of displaced and dispossessed citizens in Syria.

Why in any case does it matter whether or not they are all Syrian or whether some of them are immigrants to Syria or working there temporarily? They are all living in Syria and suffering just as Syrians living there are doing.

If in similar circumstances there were to be a mass exodus from an UK in the throes of Civil War, do you imagine that only UK citizens would be trying to leave?

Best,

Alistair