Deleted User wrote: » Government can do more to prevent crimes caused by European migrants.
By having tougher controls, and by deporting those who have the audacity to visit another country and commit a crime against its people, border controls ensure that high-quality talent is chosen before they enter the country; whilst doing more to prevent this type of criminal activity entering the country.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: Fishing came up earlier as in Brexit will finally allow the UK fishermen to 'take back control', up pops a great article from Tony Connelly that explains the background and the reality of it
Deleted User wrote: » I'm not personally responsible for what the Tory's do or not do. They do a lot I agree with, and a lot I disagree with; an analysis I have with every government of the day, indeed every country's government. I've already sketched out the moral argument on why it's imperative to deliver on the 2016 referendum result. I think that my argument came out relatively unscathed, still packing a powerful political punch. What I've now been asked to do is to outline any possible benefits of Brexit. I've issued four which, at least in theory, are beneficial to the nation-state, namely:Controlling (not necessarily reducing) EU migration to a greater extent. Culture / ensuring integration is managed; eliminating division. Restoring coastal fishing communities; enhancing those local economies. Restoring law generation to the UK parliament; eliminating that centralised power. If the Tory's, or anyone else, do not capitalize on these advantages, then shame on them. But these are tangible benefits, there's no question about it.
moon2 wrote: » From this stance I assume you are in favour of the EU, excluding Ireland, reciprocating these rules. The result would be the deportation of a large portion of the approximately 750,000 British immigrants.https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/livingabroad/april2018
[Deleted User] wrote: » Brexit is the attempt to remedy the EU-element of migration. In terms of EU migration, the point is clear: to treat EU migration in exactly the same respect as non-EU migration
Deleted User wrote: » I wasn't expecting this many concessions!"Largely open door", meaning that it must be monitored to ensure those cases that you refer to are managed. "Managed on a country by country basis" vis-a-vis visas. Furthermore, you claim that you are in favour of open borders, but then moved to the elusive language of "I think I do", regarding whether it's a complete open door or not. Because if you are arguing that there are some countries who do not have access to the UK, what you are saying is this: that controls must be in place in some form. That migration must be managed. So actually, you are now in full alignment with me - we both support managed and controlled migration, whether for crime or for specific countries; what differs us is only a matter of degree. That's precisely what I've been pressing you to admit, and admit it you have. As for this supposed elision between the BNP and I, I will absolutely not retract my statement. If your policies were implemented, and millions of people arrived in the UK unchecked each year, it would lead to greater levels of crime (because you cannot vet people beforehand without checks), and it would lead to social unrest, because millions per year cannot integrate effectively. Integration takes time, it doesn't happen overnight. That would indeed have a negative and diluted impact on the existing culture. Nobody is arguing for a culture to remain static. Cultures change all the time, but this change happens over a prolonged period of time. Nobody could possibly argue with that. Managed migration ensures that a culture can grow in-tune with its populations.
The BNP will protect our unique and precious British identity from Mass Immigration, multi-culturalism, health’n’safety killjoys and globalisation. We will: Reassert that British law comes before any other in BritainFly the Union Jack from all public government buildingsMake Saint George’s Day a national holiday Uphold our hard-won right to free speech End public funding of organisations advocating multiculturalism
Deleted User wrote: » If your policies were implemented, and millions of people arrived in the UK unchecked each year, it would lead to greater levels of crime (because you cannot vet people beforehand without checks), and it would lead to social unrest, because millions per year cannot integrate effectively.
Deleted User wrote: » It means we can do more to prevent this: Government can do more to prevent crimes caused by European migrants. When you have a complete open door to half-a-billion people, who can arrive with a passport and nothing more, it means that prospective criminals can flow into your country.
liamtech wrote: » Do you believe in complete open borders, that anyone in the world can, at any time and without any visas, visit and stay in the United Kingdom? As previously stated, yes i am in favor of a largely open door policy with regards to immigration. I use the word 'Largely' in that there are obvious exceptions in cases where individuals would be seeking to avoid justice for crimes, within other jurisdictions. You have now brought the word VISA into this discussion, which you havent done in previous posts directed at me - it actually clarifies further my position so i thank you for thatCurrently EU individuals can travel, at their own expense, to the United Kingdom, where they can work and set up residency - those coming from outside the EU can do so too, once they fill in appropriate forms and receive a Visa Your next question will be - do i favor removal of visas - yes i rather think i do but it would be something to be managed on a country by country basis - obviously no one (or very few) would have an issue with an open door policy with, for example, Australia. While some would perhaps have an issue with North Korea - now you may cheer that we are somehow in common agreement here. We are not - i have no issue with Immigration, and no wish to curb it- you clearly do
Deleted User wrote: » You didn't answer my question. Please try to robustly answer it: Do you believe in complete open borders, that anyone in the world can, at any time and without any visas, visit and stay in the United Kingdom? Meaning if the numbers were 1-2 million per year, you would presumably have no problem with that. If that is your position, then yes, that is absolutely extreme. As I've said previously, I am in favour of immigration from all over the world, as long as it's controlled quantity/quality-wise, such that the country is aware, in advance, of who is coming into the country / what their background is / if they have any criminal record / if they have the necessary skills to meet a given economic need. That may mean the same numbers of migrants coming from EU/non-EU sources, it may not. The point is that it's up to government to be aware of how many migrants are needed to fulfill these economic needs. To have an uncontrolled situation, where anyone can, as of now, visit the UK without these kinds of background checks, is not a responsible way to govern borders. As for non-EU migration, I think government has been absolutely insane with its policy. You mentioned "controlling illegal immigration". I don't know why "illegal immigration" even exists in your worldview given that you previously stated that you wish to see free movement extended to the rest of the world. If that's the case, you cannot control illegal immigration by definition. Yes.
CelticRambler wrote: » Well, given that EU migrants are almost exclusively economic migrants, and therefore only exercise their Freedom of Movement rights when there's an economic need, what additional control would this "equal playing field" give the government? And given that the UK government already has the power to limit any half-hearted economic migrants from staying in the country beyond three months, if they don't support themselves and contribute to the UK economy, is it worth burning the bridge that takes young (and not-so-young) Brits in the other direction, to fill jobs and gain experience in the 27 other EU countries? And where do you draw the line with this kind of discrimination? Should Scottish people be told to stay in Scotland unless there's an economic need for them in London? What about the Irish (Northern or "Southern") - should they stay on their island unless and until the British Government tells them they're needed?
The source is data that was released in response to a Freedom of Information request by the Metropolitan Police. According to this, there were 27,725 arrests of Romanian nationals in the five years covering the period 2008 to 2012. (In fact, owing to a change in recording methodology, data for 2008 only covers the months April to December, so may underestimate the total for this year.)
The claim that 90% of crime at ATMs (or cash machines) is the work of Romanian gangs has often been repeated in the press as far back as early 2012. It can be traced back to DCI Paul Barnard, then head of the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit (DCPCU) - a police unit run in partnership with banks and financial services companies. DCI Barnard told ITV1's 'Fraud Squad' programme that: "The fact is 92 per cent of all ATM fraud we see in this country is committed by Romanian nationals."
Deleted User wrote: » Brexit is the attempt to remedy the EU-element of migration. In terms of EU migration, the point is clear: to treat EU migration in exactly the same respect as non-EU migration; no discrimination in favour of European migrants to come to the UK and have automatic rights to search for work. Instead, it's an equal playing field. The government of the day decides who can come to meet a given economic need. It's that simple; the same as how much of the rest of the world governs their borders.
CelticRambler wrote: » How is Brexit going to fix that? Because up to now, the UK has done absolutely nothing to enforce the powers that it has in this respect. And that's mostly been while the Conservatives have been in power, so what makes you think that particular leopard will change its spots after Brexit? In fact, it'll be worse, because you say you voted for the UK to withdraw from (amongst other things) all the pan-European structures that give the British access to that kind of information, at least with respect to EU nationals. And how do you define "quality" ?
Deleted User wrote: » The point is that it's up to government to be aware of how many migrants are needed to fulfil these economic needs. To have an uncontrolled situation, where anyone can, as of now, visit the UK without these kinds of background checks, is not a responsible way to govern borders.
liamtech wrote: » Well i shall begin by immediately stating that i take no lectures on 'Extremism' from someone who's opinion on 'protecting the culture of the nation state', is a paraphrase of the policy of the British National Party You speak of the Quality of those people seeking to Immigrate to a specific country - let us speak on that term for a moment. Britain is a multi cultural country, largely due to the historic past of British Imperialism. And throughout the last 40+ years various arguments have been raised against immigration I put it to you that your view is simply the evolution of many years of thought based on an unwillingness to accept multi-culturalism as being the status quo- The Only controls necessary are in relation to Asylum seekers - of which i would support accepting the vast majority. They are human beings who need assistance to escape their circumstance - i would control it simply to avoid instances where criminals are seeking to avoid justice by this means - and this is a TINY amount compared to a vast majority who are legitimate Illegal Immigration - where we need to avoid the horrendous loss of life that we have seen recently involving desperate people trying to escape the harsh circumstances in which they fin themselves You address the later by having the former managed better Finally - i wish to address you directly and ask you to consider this. You do not like the EU - it is clear to see that. And as someone who doesnt like the EU, anything that damages or potentially weakens it is a good thing - why not just say that, instead of arguing along the lines you are? Respectfully
fash wrote: » Did Eskimohunt believe what he currently believes prior to 2013?
Strazdas wrote: » The freedom of movement "problem" was completely manufactured by the right wing tabloids. Sir Ivan Rogers says he has no recollection of the UK raising FoM laws with the EU before 2013.....it was around this time that the right wing press started kicking off with stories about 'swarms' of eastern European migrants 'flooding' into the UK.
CelticRambler wrote: » Given that immigration into the UK is not currently controlled by the UK/Tory government, despite the various powers available, how will Brexit change that?
CelticRambler wrote: » Probably yes. I've heard the same complaints about "immigrants taking our jobs" in different EEC/EU countries for the last three decades. All that's happened, I think, is that a cohort of (unelected, undemocratic) rich white guys figured out how to harness that discontent and turn it to their own monetary advantage. Countries with proportional representation and a tradition of government by consensus were/are better placed to resist that kind of wholesale manipulation of the political process, because overall, there isn't a majority with views so extreme. That, of course, is why the pro-Brexit lobby is so desperate to avoid any kind of nuanced confirmatory vote: it would destroy the simplistic "Brexit means Brexit" definition, and - probably - result in the majority deciding to stick with an arrangement that works quite well for everyone.
That, of course, is why the pro-Brexit lobby is so desperate to avoid any kind of nuanced confirmatory vote: it would destroy the simplistic "Brexit means Brexit" definition,
fash wrote: » One wonders if brexiters realise the extent to which they are merely mindless drones spewing out what they've been conditioned to spew. Did Eskimohunt believe what he currently believes prior to 2013?
McGiver wrote: » Demanded and didn't restrict. Which it could but didn't. In any way whatsoever.
fash wrote: The “economic needs†of the country demanded EU migration - and in fact could have done with even more EU migration that the UK received. Had there been double or treble the amount of EU migration, the economic benefits to the UK would have been even greater than they already were. This is precisely why the UK government demanded it.
eskimohunt wrote: Even if we take a lower figure of, say, 25% (as it depends on what you include etc.), that is a staggeringly high figure (though I suspect a figure around 40-50% is more accurate) and it's indicative of how law-making powers are EU-derived. The exact % of laws is irrelevant to me. What matters is the principle; and in my political view, all laws, or at least as many as possible, should be made by the host country and not an ever-integrating political European Union. It creates distance between citizens and where those powers derive. For this fundamental reason, I would rather see the UK dismiss this form of centralised law-generating power, and instead, return that power to the UK - whole and entire - and, if I had my way, more powers would devolve to the component parts of the UK.
Strazdas wrote: » The key EU laws that affect the UK apply mainly to subjectss like the environment, healthy and safety and working hours. EU laws have no say over the NHS, housing, education, the criminal justice system, the UK budget, social security, taxation and a myriad of other areas.
CelticRambler wrote: » Point of order, liamtech: 17.4m people voted for the British police to discontinue all cooperation with their European colleagues on matters of pan-European criminality. At least that's what I read on th'internet: Leave means Leave, everything, cut all ties, go it alone in the world ... European Arrest Warrants are tainted with the smell of Belgian chocolate and French cheese. :pac:
Deleted User wrote: » You claim this... Yet you claim all four "benefits" I listed are already within total control of the UK government: I'd like you to back-up that claim.
liamtech wrote: » i would control it simply to avoid instances where criminals are seeking to avoid justice by this means
fash wrote: » Of note, Australia has 3 times the amount of migration that the UK has - hence the interesting question that Eskimohunt refuses to answer as to what level of migration the UK should target overall.
Non-Indigenous people in 2016 were 1.4 times more likely than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be employed.
20% of Indigenous workers are participating in the Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) scheme, based on welfare payments. The Indigenous unemployment rate would exceed 40% – more than five times the national average – if CDEP participants were included in official statistics. In the absence of the CDEP scheme, the unemployment rate for Indigenous people is forecast to rise to 48% by 2006 if current trends continue.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
