[Politics] Brexit

[GrizzlingGammon]

Precisely. Having the ability to apply, amend and adjust those tools are the basic minimum you would expect when assessing if there is immigration control protocols or not.
Your glaring omission speaks volumes.
Don’t forget, let me know when you have found the EU mechanism that permits us now to have permanent control on our EU borders with visas and quotas for those EU citizens wanting to come here to work and live all whilst remaining in the EU.

You are like diarrhoea. You think it's gone then woosh. Uncontrollable sh*t everywhere.

 

[Baldseagull]

I think Owen Smith today summed up some MPs, and im paraphrasing

If parliament agrees on a second rate brexit that wasn’t what leavers voted for, then leavers themselves would want another vote, deciding on the second rate brexit or remaining in the EU.

Im not sure how more deceitful they can get.

I have been suggesting for quite some time that when we see the deal, it might be leavers wanting to have a second vote as much as remainers.

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

I think Owen Smith today summed up some MPs, and im paraphrasing

If parliament agrees on a second rate brexit that wasn’t what leavers voted for, then leavers themselves would want another vote, deciding on the second rate brexit or remaining in the EU.

Im not sure how more deceitful they can get.

The simple fact is that with a small margin win for such a big constitutional change noone would be happy. May's deal represents a 48 to 52% vote. A halfway house between the two that satisfies few people.

 

[Weststander]

Prime minister would 'break the law if she ignores Letwin result'

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-26/prime-minister-would-break-the-law-if-she-ignores-letwin-result/

On LBC about an hour ago, a former Commons legal clerk to the Speaker, covered this. He really did know his onions, answering very detailed questions from listeners. He said that it wouldn’t break any law as such, but any PM would be unlikely to do this as it would lead them with no cooperation or goodwill from the Commons.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Precisely. Having the ability to apply, amend and adjust those tools are the basic minimum you would expect when assessing if there is immigration control protocols or not.
Your glaring omission speaks volumes.
Don’t forget, let me know when you have found the EU mechanism that permits us now to have permanent control on our EU borders with visas and quotas for those EU citizens wanting to come here to work and live all whilst remaining in the EU.

I see you have (yet again) had to educate the woefully misinformed about the nonsense claim that we always had control over EU immigration. Funnily enough, I heard an interview with a certain T Blair recently where he explained his reasoning for not applying temporary restrictions on the 2004 accession countries. Apparently they thought many would come anyway as they were still entitled to do but work illegally. Blair said this happened in Germany ... so much for controlling borders.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I see you have (yet again) had to educate the woefully misinformed about the nonsense claim that we always had control over EU immigration. Funnily enough, I heard an interview with a certain T Blair recently where he explained his reasoning for not applying temporary restrictions on the 2004 accession countries. Apparently they thought many would come anyway as they were still entitled to do but work illegally. Blair said this happened in Germany ... so much for controlling borders.

The reality is no government that wants the economy to grow in turn seeks to control immigration. Whether EU rules, points based, skills based, or whatever else you want to label it, the economy needs the numbers coming in, and the politicians will be doing everything to get them in while talking the political speak of controlling immigration to the public. Immigration is a white elephant, and has been since the war. Tony Blair like every other PM before and after hasn't curbed immigration in anyway because if the economy is a vote winner the two are inextricably linked.

Anyone thinking we'll leave the EU and suddenly we'll have control of the numbers is deluded. The immigration numbers from the EU have dropped naturally recently, while those from outside have risen sharply. We could control that rise if we so wished. We don't of course, who wants the economy shrinking as a headline?

 

[clapham_gull]

I see you have (yet again) had to educate the woefully misinformed about the nonsense claim that we always had control over EU immigration.

Just so you are clear "we" isn't you and definitely not any of us.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/16/visa-extension-overseas-students-uk-brexit

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rmers-migrants-seasonal-workers-a8524871.html

Are YOU in control of either of the above ?

 

[Weststander]

The reality is no government that wants the economy to grow in turn seeks to control immigration. Whether EU rules, points based, skills based, or whatever else you want to label it, the economy needs the numbers coming in, and the politicians will be doing everything to get them in while talking the political speak of controlling immigration to the public. Immigration is a white elephant, and has been since the war. Tony Blair like every other PM before and after hasn't curbed immigration in anyway because if the economy is a vote winner the two are inextricably linked.

Anyone thinking we'll leave the EU and suddenly we'll have control of the numbers is deluded. The immigration numbers from the EU have dropped naturally recently, while those from outside have risen sharply. We could control that rise if we so wished. We don't of course, who wants the economy shrinking as a headline?

Good, balanced post.

 

[LadySeagull]

The reality is no government that wants the economy to grow in turn seeks to control immigration

Australia?

USA?

 

[Weststander]

Australia?

USA?

Both their populations, as well as NZ, have risen massively since say 1980 due to immigration. Due to their physical isolation, you are right that NZ and Australia have been able to decide who enters, but they have let the numbers in.

 

[clapham_gull]

Australia?

USA?

Sorry, that's two countries who currently (and publicly talk loudly) about cracking down on illegal immigration.

Says nothing about their immigration levels.

Unbelievable.

 

[Pantani]

Sorry, that's two countries who currently (and publicly talk loudly) about cracking down on illegal immigration.

Says nothing about their immigration levels.

Unbelievable.

Australia goes as far as to have a planned number of immigrants to keep their economy functioning as they want it too, about 190,000 a year.

 

[clapham_gull]

Australia goes as far as to have a planned number of immigrants to keep their economy functioning as they want it too, about 190,000 a year.

Exactly.

 

[Weststander]

Australia goes as far as to have a planned number of immigrants to keep their economy functioning as they want it too, about 190,000 a year.

Farage has consistently for 20 years put their model on a pedestal, being a points based system, based on national skills needs.

(Not saying I’m a Nige fan, to stave off a NSC virtual firing squad).

 

[albion68]

If Brexit does not happen democracy will be finished in our country.

 

[clapham_gull]

Farage has consistently for 20 years put their model on a pedestal, being a points based system, based on national skills needs.

(Not saying I’m a Nige fan, to stave off a NSC virtual firing squad).

If only he has consistently taken that moderate pragmatic line rather than allowing his party to employ homophobic racist bigot and suggesting he would be worried if some Romanians move next door to him.

 

[LadySeagull]

Sorry, that's two countries who currently (and publicly talk loudly) about cracking down on illegal immigration.

Says nothing about their immigration levels.

Unbelievable.

Really, so you are saying Australia only restricts illegal immigration?

Unbelievable.

 

[Mellotron]

I think Owen Smith today summed up some MPs, and im paraphrasing

If parliament agrees on a second rate brexit that wasn’t what leavers voted for, then leavers themselves would want another vote, deciding on the second rate brexit or remaining in the EU.

Im not sure how more deceitful they can get.

Genuine question.

Would you rather a ****ing shit Brexit that literally 100% of people on earth ever (Remainer and Leavers) agree 100% is completely ****ing shit, or to Remain?

Honest, genuine question.

 

[pastafarian]

We'll see who was correct and who was talking bollocks in 3 days

Everything else really is just waffle

Im fairly certain the Lisbon Treaty wont be rewritten within the next 3 days, but I admire your trust in Meg that you think it will be. The legal default in it when leaving the EU remains leaving with no deal when no withdrawal agreement can be reached. It will still be in there on Friday, next week, next month and probably for years and years, long after brexit has finished, until a new treaty takes its place. But lets see if you are right and the treaty gets an overhaul by Friday…I don’t fancy your chances much.
I know you were away on holiday but I am surprised with your 3 day deadline that you havnt yet heard about the extension.
Here is a picture from the BBC so you can keep up.
You are making less sense than normal, carry on with the meds.

I have been suggesting for quite some time that when we see the deal, it might be leavers wanting to have a second vote as much as remainers.

Tbh if MPs actually succeed in scheming a second rate brexit that doesn’t represent leaving at all and also scheme a vote between either the second rate brexit that isn’t really leaving or remaining in the EU then millions would just die laughing at the deceitful absurdity of parliament.

I see you have (yet again) had to educate the woefully misinformed about the nonsense claim that we always had control over EU immigration. Funnily enough, I heard an interview with a certain T Blair recently where he explained his reasoning for not applying temporary restrictions on the 2004 accession countries. Apparently they thought many would come anyway as they were still entitled to do but work illegally. Blair said this happened in Germany ... so much for controlling borders.

Hard work isnt it

 

[clapham_gull]

Really, so you are saying Australia only restricts illegal immigration?

Unbelievable.

Of course it doesn't, but I'm not sure how what Australia does (or the USA for that instance) applies to the UK.

There are two issues in the UK (obviously), lets be honest.

A very fast influx of East Europeans that has now slowed and was completely in the gift of any previous Government (and future) to alleviate.

The second is where non European immigrants have failed to integrate and been allowed to congregate. In areas (mainly up North) that have lost their traditional industries there has been understandable discontent.

That has NOTHING to do with the EU.

Governments in this country have been a bit shit recently looking at the social efforts of immigration, but they didn't allow immigration for politically correct purposes. They did it because they thought (rightly or wrongly) the economy required it.

Anyway - all this talk of immigration and "taking back control" is a complete red herring. The whole mess is about the border in the Northern Island.

I'm sorry to say the but the thick as mince right wing of the Tory party forgot about the Union. "We'll sort it out later" simply means we forgot about it in the first place. Realising their mistake they are now looking to save face by dumping the Unionists in Northern Ireland.

Swallow it, you know who to blame.