Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
The idea seems to be catching on in Europe.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
. . . being proposed by a populist right wing oppostion party does not really equate to "catching on" does it?
Wilier Izoard XP1 -
Populist far right stuff is really rather popular in Europe.
Unlike the UK, it's the youngsters who vote for them, and it's the retired who keep voting sensible people in.
In the same way the tables have turned here in terms of the weight of voting between generations, it will happen the other way in continental Europe; with the youngsters gaining the political upper hand.
Netherlands is always a forward indicator of European political direction and I fear Wilders is a sign of things to come.
Brexiters always assume the rest of Europe is this sort of left-wing hellhole. It really isn't.
0 -
Wonder why they are copying a policy which so obviously doesn't work. It's been talked about for 5 years and Channel crossings have gone up massively over that period. And it's clearly not impressing voters either.
Can only assume that the CDU and Meloni are as thick as the person that came up with our own version.
Feels like we're due a modern update of King Canute, with some guy claiming he's going to hold back the tide by carrying two buckets of water to Rwanda.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The most effective way of stopping asylum seekers coming would be to process claims and reject far more of them. Could also stop allowing family to come over, make it harder to get citizenship etc. Of course there's a moral and a legal debate but really that alongside making it much harder to work illegally are about the only ways to solve the problem, if you see it as a problem.
People are travelling for a better life not to risk their lives to have 6 months in a detention centre then being flown back home.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Take a look at what a happening around Europe and you'll see a pattern. We've already seen Ireland start to take action several other countries have taken action to reduce/deter immigration. Why do you think that is?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If its not working then why is Ireland responding as it is?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I would argue that it is the failure of governments to deal with immigration properly that is fuelling right wing populism. If you want these parties to grow in popularity and influence then carry on letting them come over in large numbers.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think there is an element of truth to it but we differ on what it means to 'deal' with it.
They have to come over in large numbers because Europe is aging and there aren't enough working people to sustain the amount of retired people. This will only get worse, and the need greater.
I agree that too little has been done to help immigrants integrate into the local communities, but the problem is, the left think it is offensive to stipulate criteria to be able to live in a country and the right think it's tantamount to inviting them over to invest appropriately into integrating immigrants. (e.g. I've argued immigrants must learn a basic level of English reading, writing and speaking in order to continue to live here and that gets poo pooed immediately. How can you integrate into a society if you can't even understand the road signs or what a policeman or doctor says to you?!)
So it never gets done.
Your argument for fewer numbers does not add up. How do you propose we replace and look after the massive generational bulge that is about to retire?
I also think the young really complain about the same issues, just reach for different political solutions Mainly, houses, jobs and pay that aren't bullshit.
0 -
The language thing is something I agree with you on. I don't see how anyone can move to a different country and expect to get by without a reasonable grasp of the language. For anyone arriving legitimately with a visa it would be pretty easy to make it a requirement or at most make any extension of an initial visa dependent on passing a basic language test.
0 -
Agree with you on the language and integration point.
But it does not mean that letting anyone in who rocks up - we have skills gaps etc so best to try and fill those. Let's be frank about this - those who come over in small boats are much less likely to have those skills. We need to be able to choose who comes here.
As for those retiring, we still have a younger generation and should look to top up with the right people as far as possible. But an ever increasing population is just a ponzi scheme.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I don’t think people will tolerate falling living standards so either you import in the labour or you make people work till they’re much older.
Increasing fertility has proven more or less impossible to crack.
0 -
We already sort of get to choose who comes here. Anyone coming on small boats or by any other means and claiming asylum will have to demonstrate why they qualify for asylum and will get returned to their country of origin otherwise (albeit it can be hard to prove where they originally came from). The best way to deal with it is to get the necessary resources in place to process things quickly. The biggest deterent is surely knowing that you will get turned around and sent back very quickly if you don't have a legitimate claim to asylum having used a hige amount of money getting here. However, we have a moral obligation to provide asylum where the claim is legitimate (and 'they've travelled through several safe countries getting here' isn't a reasonable excuse for us not to do our bit).
1 -
I posted up just the other day evidnce that increased immigration does not necessarily increase gdp per head, so reducing it does not necessarily make things worse.
But in any event less people = lower house prices, so it should be top of your wish list.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Birthrate not fertility.
0 -
Sort of...
Seems to me that we can't process them quick enough and this then puts a lot of strain on the system as they have to be housed and fed etc. Better to deter them from coming in the first place and the prospect of being sent to Rwanda seem be starting to have this effect, as I posted recently. There are plenty of other safe countries, including the one which most of them depart from, namely France.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It already is a requirement. Not one I agree with mind.
0 -
Hate to be the one to break it to you, but that wasn't evidence, unless the modelling is declared and the study is peer-reviewed. 'Opinion' or 'conjecture' would be more accurate.
0 -
Hey hey, if one is a #toryscum, Tufton St dubiously funded spouter, one can of course spout shit ad infinitum
0 -
Rick is right about immigrants needing to learn English 😉
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
Would be helpful if the 'loon learnt some basic English!
1 -
😀
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But why should those countries take them and not us? Just because we are an island further from trouble spots doesn’t really seem a reasonable excuse to leave it to others.
0 -
Several times more people cross the Channel than Rwanda have agreed to accept in total. As a new arrival, your chances of being selected for removal to Rwanda is roughly 1 in 100 (or maybe 200 if the HO lose your contact details). Numbers of crossings are well up on last year. I know you have to say it's working because it has a blue rosette on it, but I'm not sure whether you are trying to convince us or yourself.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
I believe that most people in the UK don't want to take in huge numbers of people from trouble spots. We have finite resources, accommodation and bility to help. Let those countries who say they want them by the boat load have them and its a win-win.
Although in the end there are probably more people who want to be somewhere else than places that can take them without seriously impacting quality of life for those who already live there. Life is tough.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Was he a Lib with a defeatist attitude like that? The name seems somehow appropriate 😉
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
More evidence that the Rwanda plan is having a deterrent effect:
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You are aware the Torygraph is back on the market? There ye go #toryscum fanboi, buy and get it on.
0 -
I'll get you a bucket then.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
