Philip_Thompson said: I'm saying we should judge any agreement made at face value. Though the EU-exit associate membership Cameron rightly rejected that you seem outraged at still requires open doors migration with the EU.
As for 2020, Dave will be gone. I'd love a politician to say the truth - migration is a good thing and we should be proud of the fact people choose to live in our country. But that really is a pipe dream that is never going to happen." I'd love a politician to say the truth - migration is a good thing and we should be proud of the fact people choose to live in our country. But that really is a pipe dream that is never going to happen."
isam said: Jeremy Corbyn said it last week
I responded at the time something along the lines of "Touché. I meant a serious (Conservative) politician. Boris Johnson I think shares that view but as he wants to be leader isn't really being vocal on the subject anymore." I'd add that when BoJo was being vocally pro-migration he was viewed as a non-serious politician.
Yes that made you look even worse. Agreeing with the party because you define yourself as a supporter of, even when you actually agree with Corbyn
Don't be silly, that's virtually like a Godwin. If the only difference between Corbyn and the Conservatives was the subject of immigration then I'd be happy to agree with Corbyn. But you and I both know its not remotely the only difference. Even fools are right sometimes.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercised by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect. (And that's even without considering the fact that many of them want us to sign straight back in to EU immigration via a trade agreement or EEA membership).
You continually trying to conflate the two, EEA membership is a right to movement of workers, not people, no job, no entry. It also conveys no right to claim benefit, and does not suborn our right to chuck out any criminals or other malcontent we wish to.
Also if you are an non-EU member, and you obtain an National ID care in any other member state, we are required to admit them as members of the EU.
Philip_Thompson said: I'm saying we should judge any agreement made at face value. Though the EU-exit associate membership Cameron rightly rejected that you seem outraged at still requires open doors migration with the EU.
As for 2020, Dave will be gone. I'd love a politician to say the truth - migration is a good thing and we should be proud of the fact people choose to live in our country. But that really is a pipe dream that is never going to happen." I'd love a politician to say the truth - migration is a good thing and we should be proud of the fact people choose to live in our country. But that really is a pipe dream that is never going to happen."
isam said: Jeremy Corbyn said it last week
I responded at the time something along the lines of "Touché. I meant a serious (Conservative) politician. Boris Johnson I think shares that view but as he wants to be leader isn't really being vocal on the subject anymore." I'd add that when BoJo was being vocally pro-migration he was viewed as a non-serious politician.
Yes that made you look even worse. Agreeing with the party because you define yourself as a supporter of, even when you actually agree with Corbyn
Don't be silly, that's virtually like a Godwin. If the only difference between Corbyn and the Conservatives was the subject of immigration then I'd be happy to agree with Corbyn. But you and I both know its not remotely the only difference. Even fools are right sometimes.
Sorry but that's nonsense
You said:
"I'd love a politician to say the truth - migration is a good thing and we should be proud of the fact people choose to live in our country. But that really is a pipe dream that is never going to happen."
A politician in the news at the moment has said exactly that... he just happens to be from a different party to the one you are a cheerleader for, so you twisted and turned and said "I had my fingers crossed"
Not questioning your BOO choice, but what's your country you want to be like, border-wise?
.?
I think Canada does a good job. They have managed to get to a situation where their immigrants are so high-skilled that they can have greater numbers and it doesn't cause public concern.
... and of course, if we only allowed highly skilled iummigrants into the country, the disparity between those at the top of the tree and immigrants would decrease significantly, immigrants would find it easier to get management jobs, on boards, into the establishment etc
''There are more than 60 ways for immigration into Canada'' ''Job Opportunity for Low Skilled Workers in Canada - Canadian provinces offer Permanent Residency to semi-skilled workers Some Canadian provinces offer Canadian Permanent Residency nominations for workers in semi-skilled professions such as: manufacturing, transportation, food and beverage, and hospitality occupations.''
Does that sound familiar? Where is Canada any different to anybody else.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/temporary-foreign-workers-in-low-skilled-jobs-must-start-leaving-canada-today/article23732494/ ''Thousands of temporary foreign workers could be heading to airports to leave Canada today as permits expire for those who have been in the country for more than four ... In Alberta alone, 10,000 temporary foreign workers have applied to stay in Canada'' ''NDP MP Jinny Sims says the deadline will likely force many workers underground.'' ''Several organizations, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, have called for an easier path to permanent residence and eventually citizenship for temporary foreign workers, especially those employed in provinces with labour shortages.''
In a world where the mature economies do not want to do their own dirty work then as Canada shows the tidal wave surge swarm of migration will continue.
Don't know a lot about Canada but I was talking about England
And I am pointing out (as I said to JEO) its wrong to assert that Canada is different to the UK (have kippers given upon Scotland and Wales?). The migration issues we are facing are world wide and how we solve them if we can needs a world wide solution.
The immigration crisis is just perfectly timed for eurosceptics. This is the one issue which could easily persuade Brits to vote OUT. And it looks like it's only going to worsen between now and the referendum.
The beauty of it for BOOers is that they don't even have to offer an alternative. They just have to say This will halve immigration overnight. And they'll be right.
Particularly now you have Germany, Italy and Sweden offering an open door, but then demanding that other EU member states do the same.
The immigration crisis is just perfectly timed for eurosceptics. This is the one issue which could easily persuade Brits to vote OUT. And it looks like it's only going to worsen between now and the referendum.
The beauty of it for BOOers is that they don't even have to offer an alternative. They just have to say This will halve immigration overnight. And they'll be right.
Particularly now you have Germany, Italy and Sweden offering an open door, but then demanding that other EU member states do the same.
With Germany and Sweden saying they will take in all Syrian refugees,we could be seeing millions on the move.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Actually the ECHR has no direct relationship to the EU, our membership of it precedes the EU and the EU's own membership of it for now has been blocked. It is arguably possible to leave the ECHR entirely if Parliament voted to do so without leaving the EU, the only thing the EU could do in response is to suspend our voting rights if the entire rest of the EU unanimously voted we were violating human rights.
EDIT: Even if we left the EU we'd still be members of the ECHR.
Mind you, none of this is remotely surprising. 'Naive extreme-left winger draws support from naive extreme left-wingers' seems a bit of a non-headline.
Equally unsurprising: cheap, online voting tends to maximise Corbynista representation.
If that's the future of democracy, we're in real trouble.
I think on-line voting should be made compulsory. We should scrap paper voting slips and polling stations.
This would encourage more people to vote, particulary young people. It might discourage some elderly from voting but that would be fine. It would help redress the current unfair bias to the elderly in the current system which is corrupting politics and encouraging inter-generational conflict.
I hope JC adds this to his policies.
Anyone considering supporting electronic voting should watch the following:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
It's madness.
Agreed. I like technology and software. I know it very well. And I wouldn't touch e-voting with a bargepole.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
The question is not whether this is what we wanted or even who is to blame, the question is, is this not an inevitable consequence of the UK being as it is in 2015?
Post of the day.
Its ironic - but Cameron is being punished for economic success - the better the British economy does, the more will want to come, the fewer Brits (or Poles) will want to leave.....
They should probably just STFU about immigration beyond stopping the bogus colleges and get on with house building.....
This is correct, but I would add that Cameron isn't being punished. As we are constantly told, he got a smashing personal victory and a massive Conservative mandate. So clearly "mass immigration" is not a vote loser.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercised by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.'
But staying in the EU is worst of both worlds, unrestricted immigration from the EU and the inability to deport non EU immigrants due to the ECHR.
I also see that Bulgarian and Romanian immigration is pretty much in line with MigrationWatch estimates, which were called "scaremongering" at the time.
The immigration crisis is just perfectly timed for eurosceptics. This is the one issue which could easily persuade Brits to vote OUT. And it looks like it's only going to worsen between now and the referendum.
The beauty of it for BOOers is that they don't even have to offer an alternative. They just have to say This will halve immigration overnight. And they'll be right.
Particularly now you have Germany, Italy and Sweden offering an open door, but then demanding that other EU member states do the same.
The immigration crisis is just perfectly timed for eurosceptics. This is the one issue which could easily persuade Brits to vote OUT. And it looks like it's only going to worsen between now and the referendum.
The beauty of it for BOOers is that they don't even have to offer an alternative. They just have to say This will halve immigration overnight. And they'll be right.
Particularly now you have Germany, Italy and Sweden offering an open door, but then demanding that other EU member states do the same.
With Germany and Sweden saying they will take in all Syrian refugees,we could be seeing millions on the move.
Only if they give them passports. Which takes 8 years from memory in Germany.
Re Canada and immigration: I think people miss how multicultural Canada is, especially the West Coast. As I travel around the world, except when I'm in China or Japan, white men are always in the majority in meetings. (Except in Norway or Sweden, when it's sometimes white women.) The exception is Canada, where on the West coast, I am very often the only white person in the meeting. Large parts of Vancouver feel far more foreign than Bradford, with barely a single sign in English. (Toronto also seems to have very large, unintegrated, immigrant communities).
About 21% of people in Canada are foreign born, and if you take the Maritimes, Saskatchewen, and Quebec (where immigration levels are much lower), then the number is probably quite a bit higher, especially in BC, Alberta and Ontario. Immigration of 250,000 per year, according to this site, is the highest per capita of the G8.
It's not just high skilled workers that come to Canada. There is a specific visa programme for the low skilled that offers visa for "jobs that require lower levels of formal training (e.g. food and beverage servers, chambermaids". (See here.) I also know a great many people from India, the Middle East that studied in Canada, often on quite short courses, in order to get a Canadian study Visa.
Why has this not caused the same problems as in the UK? Well, firstly, I think the UK discussion on immigration gets too intertwined with the EU. Secondly, Canada has been enjoying an oil driven boom over the last 15 years. (One that is coming to an end as we speak.) When the price of oil went from $12 to $150/barrel, while production went from 2m to 3.5m barrels a day, there was a building boom, and there was an oil boom.
Anyway: the point I'm making is that Canada doesn't just have a policy of letting high skilled workers in, and lets a lot of people in. In large parts of BC, as a white person of Christian European origin, speaking English, you'd be the one who felt like the minority.
Most of the Chinese folk who work in our HK office have Canadian passports and accents. We really lost out by not offering UK citizenship to the HK Chinese.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
Yes, it will be technically, but in reality someone that has spent thirty years of their life in Syria, got asylum in Sweden, got a Swedish passport four years later, and then moves to the UK is more Syrian than Swedish.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercised by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.'
But staying in the EU is worst of both worlds, unrestricted immigration from the EU and the inability to deport non EU immigrants due to the ECHR.
The ECHR isn't an EU institution. If we left the EU we'd still be subject to the ECHR.
Edit - I see Mr Thompson made this same point earlier on.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercised by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.'
But staying in the EU is worst of both worlds, unrestricted immigration from the EU and the inability to deport non EU immigrants due to the ECHR.
The ECHR isn't an EU institution. If we left the EU we'd still be subject to the ECHR.
But leaving the EU means you could leave the ECHR.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
Can you really enter the UK without a visa on an EU ID card if you don't have an EU passport?
The question is not whether this is what we wanted or even who is to blame, the question is, is this not an inevitable consequence of the UK being as it is in 2015?
Post of the day.
Its ironic - but Cameron is being punished for economic success - the better the British economy does, the more will want to come, the fewer Brits (or Poles) will want to leave.....
They should probably just STFU about immigration beyond stopping the bogus colleges and get on with house building.....
This is correct, but I would add that Cameron isn't being punished. As we are constantly told, he got a smashing personal victory and a massive Conservative mandate. So clearly "mass immigration" is not a vote loser.
Horse feathers. It just means he might have a majority of 80 not 12 if he had a credible line on immigration, for a start a chunk of those 4 million kipper voters might have voted for him.
The immigration crisis is just perfectly timed for eurosceptics. This is the one issue which could easily persuade Brits to vote OUT. And it looks like it's only going to worsen between now and the referendum.
The beauty of it for BOOers is that they don't even have to offer an alternative. They just have to say This will halve immigration overnight. And they'll be right.
Particularly now you have Germany, Italy and Sweden offering an open door, but then demanding that other EU member states do the same.
The immigration crisis is just perfectly timed for eurosceptics. This is the one issue which could easily persuade Brits to vote OUT. And it looks like it's only going to worsen between now and the referendum.
The beauty of it for BOOers is that they don't even have to offer an alternative. They just have to say This will halve immigration overnight. And they'll be right.
Particularly now you have Germany, Italy and Sweden offering an open door, but then demanding that other EU member states do the same.
With Germany and Sweden saying they will take in all Syrian refugees,we could be seeing millions on the move.
Only if they give them passports. Which takes 8 years from memory in Germany.
What the hell are you on about,any refugees from Syria these countries will not deport,proberly same as Britain but we are not shouting it from the roof tops .
I expect the message getting back to the refugee camps holding millions of people on the Syrian borders.
Mind you, none of this is remotely surprising. 'Naive extreme-left winger draws support from naive extreme left-wingers' seems a bit of a non-headline.
Equally unsurprising: cheap, online voting tends to maximise Corbynista representation.
If that's the future of democracy, we're in real trouble.
I think on-line voting should be made compulsory. We should scrap paper voting slips and polling stations.
This would encourage more people to vote, particulary young people. It might discourage some elderly from voting but that would be fine. It would help redress the current unfair bias to the elderly in the current system which is corrupting politics and encouraging inter-generational conflict.
I hope JC adds this to his policies.
Anyone considering supporting electronic voting should watch the following:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
It's madness.
Agreed. I like technology and software. I know it very well. And I wouldn't touch e-voting with a bargepole.
How about on-line banking?
You are comparing apples and orangutans.
With banking there are all sorts of checks: if you make a payment you confirm it with a digital signature, you see the result on the screen, and you can confirm it on a statement later. The person receiving the payment also confirms that they received it. And you can complain and get your money back if there is a problem that is not your fault.
None of this applies, or is possible, with e-voting.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
I've just had a new kitchen put in. Every single person I've dealt with, from the staff at John Lewis Oxford Street, to the fitters, to the plumbers, to the granite installers (etc etc) has been non white or non British or both (apart from one guy who did a bit of templating)
I've no complaints at all. It's all been nicely efficient. The Romanian (I think) fitter was particularly charming, and fast becoming a Londoner ("yeah mate, lovely job" - in a Bucharest accent). But it was quite enlightening as to just how multiracial London has become.
Not being sarcastic, but as someone from the v outskirts of London (last stop on the district line) it is quite nice to go into London of an evening and hear all the different accents. Like going on holiday.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
Can you really enter the UK without a visa on an EU ID card if you don't have an EU passport?
You’re from an EEA country or Switzerland You can enter the UK with either a valid passport or a national identity card issued by a EEA country. It must be valid for the whole of your stay.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
It genuinely did feel a lot different to what we, as country bumpkins were used to, but it was fun, vibrant, interesting, but I couldn't live there!
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
But between 1500 and 1997, most of the people you'd meet in central London would speak with English accents. That's not true any more.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
Can you really enter the UK without a visa on an EU ID card if you don't have an EU passport?
You’re from an EEA country or Switzerland You can enter the UK with either a valid passport or a national identity card issued by a EEA country. It must be valid for the whole of your stay.
Identity cards that do not state EEA citizenship, including national identity cards issued to residents who are non-EEA citizens, are not valid as a travel document within the EEA and Switzerland.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
So given that around 40% of immigrants into the UK were from non-EU countries there is clearly a lot more that could be done if the political will did exist.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
That's slightly misleading: EU countries, AFAIK, will only offer you a citizen's ID card when you are a citizen. Otherwise you are just someone with a (say) Canadian passport and a Visa with right to reside. You can get non-citizen's ID cards in some countries, but they merely contain right to travel around Schengen.
Until someone has an EU passport, then they cannot come to the UK on an EU ID card.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercised by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.'
But staying in the EU is worst of both worlds, unrestricted immigration from the EU and the inability to deport non EU immigrants due to the ECHR.
The ECHR isn't an EU institution. If we left the EU we'd still be subject to the ECHR.
But leaving the EU means you could leave the ECHR.
You could, but it would be a separate process, and who is proposing it anyway?
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
Not to the extent that 50%+ were from a minority, or overseas. The levels of immigration over the last 18 years are simply unprecedented in British history. I think the English have effectively "lost" their capital, and the world has gained a metropolis/city state on the UK landmass.
Prior to 1955, i suspect the figure never topped 10-20% throughout London's entire history.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
Can you really enter the UK without a visa on an EU ID card if you don't have an EU passport?
You’re from an EEA country or Switzerland You can enter the UK with either a valid passport or a national identity card issued by a EEA country. It must be valid for the whole of your stay.
Identity cards that do not state EEA citizenship, including national identity cards issued to residents who are non-EEA citizens, are not valid as a travel document within the EEA and Switzerland.
The question is not whether this is what we wanted or even who is to blame, the question is, is this not an inevitable consequence of the UK being as it is in 2015?
Post of the day.
Its ironic - but Cameron is being punished for economic success - the better the British economy does, the more will want to come, the fewer Brits (or Poles) will want to leave.....
They should probably just STFU about immigration beyond stopping the bogus colleges and get on with house building.....
This is correct, but I would add that Cameron isn't being punished. As we are constantly told, he got a smashing personal victory and a massive Conservative mandate. So clearly "mass immigration" is not a vote loser.
Horse feathers. It just means he might have a majority of 80 not 12 if he had a credible line on immigration, for a start a chunk of those 4 million kipper voters might have voted for him.
As long as governments can gain seats to win a majority while overseeing UNACCEPTABLE MASS IMMIGRATION, they won't change their tune.
One of the big issues Cameron could have clobbered the new labour leader like open door corbyn with was on immigration,now corbyn can laugh in his face.
Save that Corbyn wants even more immigration and to remove what controls do exist e.g. on the minimum income needed. So Corbyn is hardly like to challenge Cameron on this and if he does Cameron has an easy answer.
Corbyn's line should (IMO) be that it's best to be honest. We can't stop immigration, short of the drastic move of withdrawing from both EU and EEA. Mr Cameron says he can, and is proved wrong - some would say untruthful - every single time the figures are published. I say that we can't, and instead should move to dealing with it in a reasonable way that treats people as individuals who are encouraged to integrate and contribute to a thriving society.
It's pretty much what I said on the doorstep for years, and not IMO a contributory reason to why I lost. Even people who were pretty anti-immigration generally accepted it as a straight answer, and some were really more anti-weaselly politicians than they were anti-immigration.
Who calls for stopping immigration?
Reducing it to the level we had prior to 2000 is not an unreasonable objective. And let's not kid ourselves that the economy would grind to a halt without present levels of immigration. The growth rate per capita since 2000 has been far below the level of growth per capita we saw between 1960-2000.
"Who calls for stopping immigration?"
Classic slippery lefty technique...
The fact is the Conservatives Labour and Lib Dems want uncontrolled immigration (all three have overseen record increases),
UKIP want controlled immigration,
BNP etc want no immigration
Two extremes with one sensible party in the middle
Sam, you should know that Conservative policy is not uncontrolled immigration. You give kippers a bad name for not knowing the facts or trying to deceive your audience.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
Can you really enter the UK without a visa on an EU ID card if you don't have an EU passport?
You’re from an EEA country or Switzerland You can enter the UK with either a valid passport or a national identity card issued by a EEA country. It must be valid for the whole of your stay.
Identity cards that do not state EEA citizenship, including national identity cards issued to residents who are non-EEA citizens, are not valid as a travel document within the EEA and Switzerland.
Do you have a stronger source than Wikipedia ? On balance I will take the official UK Border Force website over a Wikipedia entry without supporting primary source.
One of the big issues Cameron could have clobbered the new labour leader like open door corbyn with was on immigration,now corbyn can laugh in his face.
Save that Corbyn wants even more immigration and to remove what controls do exist e.g. on the minimum income needed. So Corbyn is hardly like to challenge Cameron on this and if he does Cameron has an easy answer.
Corbyn's line should (IMO) be that it's best to be honest. We can't stop immigration, short of the drastic move of withdrawing from both EU and EEA. Mr Cameron says he can, and is proved wrong - some would say untruthful - every single time the figures are published. I say that we can't, and instead should move to dealing with it in a reasonable way that treats people as individuals who are encouraged to integrate and contribute to a thriving society.
It's pretty much what I said on the doorstep for years, and not IMO a contributory reason to why I lost. Even people who were pretty anti-immigration generally accepted it as a straight answer, and some were really more anti-weaselly politicians than they were anti-immigration.
Who calls for stopping immigration?
Reducing it to the level we had prior to 2000 is not an unreasonable objective. And let's not kid ourselves that the economy would grind to a halt without present levels of immigration. The growth rate per capita since 2000 has been far below the level of growth per capita we saw between 1960-2000.
"Who calls for stopping immigration?"
Classic slippery lefty technique...
The fact is the Conservatives Labour and Lib Dems want uncontrolled immigration (all three have overseen record increases),
UKIP want controlled immigration,
BNP etc want no immigration
Two extremes with one sensible party in the middle
Sam, you should know that Conservative policy is not uncontrolled immigration. You give kippers a bad name for not knowing the facts or trying to deceive your audience.
No party in power has ever had a stated policy of uncontrolled immigration.
Merely because a bunch of barely literate journalists who in my school would not be permitted to sit English A-level are incapable of formulating a sentence correctly is no reason to let standards slip on PB.
We iz all caperbull of speking the Kween's Inglish on yurr, izn't uz?
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercised by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.'
But staying in the EU is worst of both worlds, unrestricted immigration from the EU and the inability to deport non EU immigrants due to the ECHR.
The ECHR isn't an EU institution. If we left the EU we'd still be subject to the ECHR.
But leaving the EU means you could leave the ECHR.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
But between 1500 and 1997, most of the people you'd meet in central London would speak with English accents. That's not true any more.
The Huguenots had a very extensive, and distinctive, presence in London for many decades before they integrated away. Similarly there were lots of people from the low countries who lived in urban England because of the wool trade (I recall reading somewhere that about a third of people in medieval Norwich were Flemish though my memory may be failing me on the exact details). From the 1700s there were also lots of Germans in East London working in the sugar industry.
By the turn of the twentieth century, Limehouse hosted London's Chinatown and there was a very extensive Eastern European (Jewish) presence in East London. I've heard that 19th century Edinburgh was quite cosmopolitan, in terms of the West European accents (French, German, Italian) that could be heard there. Obviously the scale of changes post-WW2 was larger, but I don't think there was a magical transformation in 1997.
Merely because a bunch of barely literate journalists who in my school would not be permitted to sit English A-level are incapable of formulating a sentence correctly is no reason to let standards slip on PB.
We iz all caperbull of speking the Kween's Inglish on yurr, izn't uz?
For anyone wanting to know how long before people can become citizens for various EU countries, here is the minimum requirements (according to Quora):
Austria: A permanent residence in the country during 10 years is required. Dual citizenship is NOT allowed. Belgium: requires 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed. Bulgaria: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed. Czech Republic: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed since 2014. Denmark: 9 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed. Finland: 6 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed. France: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed. Germany: 8 years of residence, can be reduced to 7 or even 6 with integration and language courses. Dual citizenship is NOT allowed. [Not fully accurate, it's allowed for EU countries and there are exceptions. This might also be subject to change under the new government.] Greece: 10 years, dual citizenship is allowed. Hungary: 8 years, dual citizenship is allowed. Iceland: 7 years, dual citizenship is allowed. Ireland: Permanent residence in the country during 5 out of 9 years is required. You must be a resident during the year before applying [thanks Vijay Sankaran]. Dual citizenship is allowed. Italy: 10 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed. Latvia: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed. Lithuania: 10 years of residence are required. Dual citizenship is NOT allowed. Luxembourg: 10 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed. Malta: 5 years of permanent residence (usually following 5 years of temporary residence as noted by Bence Zakonyi), dual citizenship is allowed. Netherlands: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed [exceptions are common as noted by Jeannine van der Linden]. Norway: 7 of the last 10 years, dual citizenship is NOT allowed. Poland: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed. Portugal: 6 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed. Romania: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed. Slovakia: 8 years of residence are required. Dual citizenship is NOT allowed any more [thanks Zuzana Soročinová]. Slovenia: 10 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed. Spain: 10 years of residence are required. This requirement can be reduced to 2 years (but not waived) in case of nationals from a former colony of Spain (it covers a number of Latin American countries and the Philippines). Dual citizenship is allowed for the latter group only [thanks Guillermo López López]. Sweden: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed. Switzerland: 12 years of residence (time between age 10 and 20 counts twice), dual citizenship is allowed. United Kingdom: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed. Paradoxically, 6 years for EU/EEA citizens - and everyone not free of "immigration time restrictions" 12 months prior to applying [thanks Ashley Connor].
One of the big issues Cameron could have clobbered the new labour leader like open door corbyn with was on immigration,now corbyn can laugh in his face.
Save that Corbyn wants even more immigration and to remove what controls do exist e.g. on the minimum income needed. So Corbyn is hardly like to challenge Cameron on this and if he does Cameron has an easy answer.
Corbyn's line should (IMO) be that it's best to be honest. We can't stop immigration, short of the drastic move of withdrawing from both EU and EEA. Mr Cameron says he can, and is proved wrong - some would say untruthful - every single time the figures are published. I say that we can't, and instead should move to dealing with it in a reasonable way that treats people as individuals who are encouraged to integrate and contribute to a thriving society.
It's pretty much what I said on the doorstep for years, and not IMO a contributory reason to why I lost. Even people who were pretty anti-immigration generally accepted it as a straight answer, and some were really more anti-weaselly politicians than they were anti-immigration.
Who calls for stopping immigration?
Reducing it to the level we had prior to 2000 is not an unreasonable objective. And let's not kid ourselves that the economy would grind to a halt without present levels of immigration. The growth rate per capita since 2000 has been far below the level of growth per capita we saw between 1960-2000.
"Who calls for stopping immigration?"
Classic slippery lefty technique...
The fact is the Conservatives Labour and Lib Dems want uncontrolled immigration (all three have overseen record increases),
UKIP want controlled immigration,
BNP etc want no immigration
Two extremes with one sensible party in the middle
Sam, you should know that Conservative policy is not uncontrolled immigration. You give kippers a bad name for not knowing the facts or trying to deceive your audience.
Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem all support free movement within the EU which means the number of immigrants can not be controlled.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
That's slightly misleading: EU countries, AFAIK, will only offer you a citizen's ID card when you are a citizen. Otherwise you are just someone with a (say) Canadian passport and a Visa with right to reside. You can get non-citizen's ID cards in some countries, but they merely contain right to travel around Schengen.
Until someone has an EU passport, then they cannot come to the UK on an EU ID card.
Unhappily at least three EU countries are selling EU passports to anyone with the cash.
One of the big issues Cameron could have clobbered the new labour leader like open door corbyn with was on immigration,now corbyn can laugh in his face.
Save that Corbyn wants even more immigration and to remove what controls do exist e.g. on the minimum income needed. So Corbyn is hardly like to challenge Cameron on this and if he does Cameron has an easy answer.
Corbyn's line should (IMO) be that it's best to be honest. We can't stop immigration, short of the drastic move of withdrawing from both EU and EEA. Mr Cameron says he can, and is proved wrong - some would say untruthful - every single time the figures are published. I say that we can't, and instead should move to dealing with it in a reasonable way that treats people as individuals who are encouraged to integrate and contribute to a thriving society.
It's pretty much what I said on the doorstep for years, and not IMO a contributory reason to why I lost. Even people who were pretty anti-immigration generally accepted it as a straight answer, and some were really more anti-weaselly politicians than they were anti-immigration.
Who calls for stopping immigration?
Reducing it to the level we had prior to 2000 is not an unreasonable objective. And let's not kid ourselves that the economy would grind to a halt without present levels of immigration. The growth rate per capita since 2000 has been far below the level of growth per capita we saw between 1960-2000.
"Who calls for stopping immigration?"
Classic slippery lefty technique...
The fact is the Conservatives Labour and Lib Dems want uncontrolled immigration (all three have overseen record increases),
UKIP want controlled immigration,
BNP etc want no immigration
Two extremes with one sensible party in the middle
Sam, you should know that Conservative policy is not uncontrolled immigration. You give kippers a bad name for not knowing the facts or trying to deceive your audience.
Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem all support free movement within the EU which means the number of immigrants can not be controlled.
That's not true. It's called at 400 million people.
Merely because a bunch of barely literate journalists who in my school would not be permitted to sit English A-level are incapable of formulating a sentence correctly is no reason to let standards slip on PB.
We iz all caperbull of speking the Kween's Inglish on yurr, izn't uz?
Your correct.
*ducks*
*gets up, shouts loudly, sits down again*
EDIT - Mr R. Smithson, before my blood pressure does another rocket, would you please check the opening line of your informative post on minimum length of residency required by divers EU countries? The word after 'here' may be of interest.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
That's slightly misleading: EU countries, AFAIK, will only offer you a citizen's ID card when you are a citizen. Otherwise you are just someone with a (say) Canadian passport and a Visa with right to reside. You can get non-citizen's ID cards in some countries, but they merely contain right to travel around Schengen.
Until someone has an EU passport, then they cannot come to the UK on an EU ID card.
Unhappily at least three EU countries are selling EU passports to anyone with the cash.
The cheapest country to buy an EU passport is still the UK, isn't it?
One of the big issues Cameron could have clobbered the new labour leader like open door corbyn with was on immigration,now corbyn can laugh in his face.
Save that Corbyn wants even more immigration and to remove what controls do exist e.g. on the minimum income needed. So Corbyn is hardly like to challenge Cameron on this and if he does Cameron has an easy answer.
Corbyn's line should (IMO) be that it's best to be honest. We can't stop immigration, short of the drastic move of withdrawing from both EU and EEA. Mr Cameron says he can, and is proved wrong - some would say untruthful - every single time the figures are published. I say that we can't, and instead should move to dealing with it in a reasonable way that treats people as individuals who are encouraged to integrate and contribute to a thriving society.
It's pretty much what I said on the doorstep for years, and not IMO a contributory reason to why I lost. Even people who were pretty anti-immigration generally accepted it as a straight answer, and some were really more anti-weaselly politicians than they were anti-immigration.
Who calls for stopping immigration?
Reducing it to the level we had prior to 2000 is not an unreasonable objective. And let's not kid ourselves that the economy would grind to a halt without present levels of immigration. The growth rate per capita since 2000 has been far below the level of growth per capita we saw between 1960-2000.
"Who calls for stopping immigration?"
Classic slippery lefty technique...
The fact is the Conservatives Labour and Lib Dems want uncontrolled immigration (all three have overseen record increases),
UKIP want controlled immigration,
BNP etc want no immigration
Two extremes with one sensible party in the middle
Sam, you should know that Conservative policy is not uncontrolled immigration. You give kippers a bad name for not knowing the facts or trying to deceive your audience.
No, Conservatives are for incompetently managed and disingenuously sold immigration controls
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
Can you really enter the UK without a visa on an EU ID card if you don't have an EU passport?
LOL, why do you think we have millions of illegal immigrants.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
Can you really enter the UK without a visa on an EU ID card if you don't have an EU passport?
You’re from an EEA country or Switzerland You can enter the UK with either a valid passport or a national identity card issued by a EEA country. It must be valid for the whole of your stay.
That's because ID cards function as a passport, they state your nationality on them. If it says Syrian then you can't enter the UK using it, you have to be from the EEA/Switzerland.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercided by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.
Very good point. If we want to reduce non-EU migration the power is in our hands.
Except the power is not in our hands when other EU nations hand out passports to hundreds of thousands of non-EU migrants. The European courts also have a very broadly defined "right to a family life" that bind our hands greatly.
Surely if they have EU passports they are counted as EU immigrants.
I think that is the point, in the context of being in the EU toughing up border controls against non-EU immigrants is almost pointless since you immigrate in a more favourable EU country, and then once in receipt of a EU country National Identity card (note: a passport is not required) they can move to the UK anyway.
That's slightly misleading: EU countries, AFAIK, will only offer you a citizen's ID card when you are a citizen. Otherwise you are just someone with a (say) Canadian passport and a Visa with right to reside. You can get non-citizen's ID cards in some countries, but they merely contain right to travel around Schengen.
Until someone has an EU passport, then they cannot come to the UK on an EU ID card.
Unhappily at least three EU countries are selling EU passports to anyone with the cash.
The cheapest country to buy an EU passport is still the UK, isn't it?
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
They were however invaders and not welcomed by the resident population at the time.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
Not to the extent that 50%+ were from a minority, or overseas. The levels of immigration over the last 18 years are simply unprecedented in British history. I think the English have effectively "lost" their capital, and the world has gained a metropolis/city state on the UK landmass.
Prior to 1955, i suspect the figure never topped 10-20% throughout London's entire history.
Identity cards that do not state EEA citizenship, including national identity cards issued to residents who are non-EEA citizens, are not valid as a travel document within the EEA and Switzerland.
One of the big issues Cameron could have clobbered the new labour leader like open door corbyn with was on immigration,now corbyn can laugh in his face.
Save that Corbyn wants even more immigration and to remove what controls do exist e.g. on the minimum income needed. So Corbyn is hardly like to challenge Cameron on this and if he does Cameron has an easy answer.
Corbyn's line should (IMO) be that it's best to be honest. We can't stop immigration, short of the drastic move of withdrawing from both EU and EEA. Mr Cameron says he can, and is proved wrong - some would say untruthful - every single time the figures are published. I say that we can't, and instead should move to dealing with it in a reasonable way that treats people as individuals who are encouraged to integrate and contribute to a thriving society.
It's pretty much what I said on the doorstep for years, and not IMO a contributory reason to why I lost. Even people who were pretty anti-immigration generally accepted it as a straight answer, and some were really more anti-weaselly politicians than they were anti-immigration.
Who calls for stopping immigration?
Reducing it to the level we had prior to 2000 is not an unreasonable objective. And let's not kid ourselves that the economy would grind to a halt without present levels of immigration. The growth rate per capita since 2000 has been far below the level of growth per capita we saw between 1960-2000.
"Who calls for stopping immigration?"
Classic slippery lefty technique...
The fact is the Conservatives Labour and Lib Dems want uncontrolled immigration (all three have overseen record increases),
UKIP want controlled immigration,
BNP etc want no immigration
Two extremes with one sensible party in the middle
Sam, you should know that Conservative policy is not uncontrolled immigration. You give kippers a bad name for not knowing the facts or trying to deceive your audience.
Sorry.
The result of a having a Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem Govt is to have record levels of immigration
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
But between 1500 and 1997, most of the people you'd meet in central London would speak with English accents. That's not true any more.
The Huguenots had a very extensive, and distinctive, presence in London for many decades before they integrated away. Similarly there were lots of people from the low countries who lived in urban England because of the wool trade (I recall reading somewhere that about a third of people in medieval Norwich were Flemish though my memory may be failing me on the exact details). From the 1700s there were also lots of Germans in East London working in the sugar industry.
By the turn of the twentieth century, Limehouse hosted London's Chinatown and there was a very extensive Eastern European (Jewish) presence in East London. I've heard that 19th century Edinburgh was quite cosmopolitan, in terms of the West European accents (French, German, Italian) that could be heard there. Obviously the scale of changes post-WW2 was larger, but I don't think there was a magical transformation in 1997.
I'm sure you could hear a handful of foreign accents throughout the time period. But now it's a clear majority of the people you meet.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
Mostly northern/western European Christians in other words. A somewhat different situation to what is happening in London these days.
Depends whether you take a descriptive or prescriptive approach. I wouldn't write off the chances of "different to" becoming considered correct formal English. Sadly I do not see "different against" making a resurgence, though I find that form rather more expressive.
I was reading the PB archives and saw one of PB's social historians making a comment along the lines of "for most people the 1960s looked like the our vision of the 1950s people, and for most people the 1970s looked like our image of the 1960s". Can't remember who it was, though, was it you? I meant to point them in the direction of the Varian Rule in economics, which would support their argument:
The Varian Rule holds that "A simple way to forecast the future is to look at what rich people have today; middle-income people will have something equivalent in 10 years, and poor people will have it in an additional decade." It is attributed to Google’s chief economist Hal Varian. The origin of the term is credited to Andrew McAfee of the Financial Times.
Some notable examples include anti-lock braking systems, electronic stability control systems and airbags which first appeared on high-end luxury vehicles before becoming commoditized on more mainstream automobiles.
Merely because a bunch of barely literate journalists who in my school would not be permitted to sit English A-level are incapable of formulating a sentence correctly is no reason to let standards slip on PB.
We iz all caperbull of speking the Kween's Inglish on yurr, izn't uz?
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
When I was up in Durness at the beginning of the month (a village three hours northwest of Inverness), I was surprised to see the village filled with German, Dutch, French, Spanish, Swiss, and several other nations. The pub was also staffed by foreigners, as was the hotel (if you call English 'foreign' in Scotland!)
True, the village is on a tourist route that many continentals travel in the summer - you can be walking along a single-track road and be passed by a dozen Dutch motorhomes in convoy. But I'm surprised that people would come to work in a place which, whilst superbly beautiful, is in the arse end of beyond.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
Mostly northern European Christians in other words. A somewhat different situation to what is happening in London these days.
Only the 'French' (really Normans) were Christians at the time of arrival. The Italians worshipped the Hellenic gods and any others that were going - the Saxons and Danes had their own variant of a pagan religion.
Of course, in 1066 William had the Pope's permission and endorsement for the invasion of England, so it was technically the target of a crusade - the first ever, indeed.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
Mostly northern/western European Christians in other words. A somewhat different situation to what is happening in London these days.
I don't think the Italians, Germans or Danes were Christian when they first turned up.
Depends whether you take a descriptive or prescriptive approach. I wouldn't write off the chances of "different to" becoming considered correct formal English. Sadly I do not see "different against" making a resurgence, though I find that form rather more expressive.
I was reading the PB archives and saw one of PB's social historians making a comment along the lines of "for most people the 1960s looked like the our vision of the 1950s people, and for most people the 1970s looked like our image of the 1960s". Can't remember who it was, though, was it you? I meant to point them in the direction of the Varian Rule in economics, which would support their argument:
The Varian Rule holds that "A simple way to forecast the future is to look at what rich people have today; middle-income people will have something equivalent in 10 years, and poor people will have it in an additional decade." It is attributed to Google’s chief economist Hal Varian. The origin of the term is credited to Andrew McAfee of the Financial Times.
Some notable examples include anti-lock braking systems, electronic stability control systems and airbags which first appeared on high-end luxury vehicles before becoming commoditized on more mainstream automobiles.
Merely because a bunch of barely literate journalists who in my school would not be permitted to sit English A-level are incapable of formulating a sentence correctly is no reason to let standards slip on PB.
We iz all caperbull of speking the Kween's Inglish on yurr, izn't uz?
I saw the post myself, but it wasn't me. I've never heard of the Varian rule, but it does seem logical as far as it goes.
'Different to' is incorrect, colloquial English. It just happens to be widely used. It's a bit like the idea of 'firing arrows.'
London is a net contributor to the UK, along with the South East. That's despite the overcrowding and the resources that both take up. If they were not the powerhouses that they are, the whole country would be in far worse shape than it is currently.
I think you're misreading the UKBF site. It says "if you are from an EEA country", which I think means citizenship.
Your links were interesting. Especially this bit:
"David Cameron was urged earlier this week by 90 senior Tories to re–impose controls on Bulgarian and Romanian migrants or risk social unrest. They demanded that the Prime Minister use a little-known clause in EU law that allows governments to continue with border controls if their country is ‘undergoing or foresees serious labour market disturbances’."
"I was reading the PB archives and saw one of PB's social historians making a comment along the lines of "for most people the 1960s looked like the our vision of the 1950s people, and for most people the 1970s looked like our image of the 1960s". Can't remember who it was, though, was it you? I meant to point them in the direction of the Varian Rule in economics, which would support their argument:
The Varian Rule holds that "A simple way to forecast the future is to look at what rich people have today; middle-income people will have something equivalent in 10 years, and poor people will have it in an additional decade." It is attributed to Google’s chief economist Hal Varian. The origin of the term is credited to Andrew McAfee of the Financial Times.
Some notable examples include anti-lock braking systems, electronic stability control systems and airbags which first appeared on high-end luxury vehicles before becoming commoditized on more mainstream automobiles."
I think that's in one of Dominic Sandbrook's books, he spends a big chunk in one saying that for the average person in the mid-70s, things were nearer to how we imagine the 60s to be.
One of the big issues Cameron could have clobbered the new labour leader like open door corbyn with was on immigration,now corbyn can laugh in his face.
Save that Corbyn wants even more immigration and to remove what controls do exist e.g. on the minimum income needed. So Corbyn is hardly like to challenge Cameron on this and if he does Cameron has an easy answer.
Corbyn's line should (IMO) be that it's best to be honest. We can't stop immigration, short of the drastic move of withdrawing from both EU and EEA. Mr Cameron says he can, and is proved wrong - some would say untruthful - every single time the figures are published. I say that we can't, and instead should move to dealing with it in a reasonable way that treats people as individuals who are encouraged to integrate and contribute to a thriving society.
It's pretty much what I said on the doorstep for years, and not IMO a contributory reason to why I lost. Even people who were pretty anti-immigration generally accepted it as a straight answer, and some were really more anti-weaselly politicians than they were anti-immigration.
Who calls for stopping immigration?
Reducing it to the level we had prior to 2000 is not an unreasonable objective. And let's not kid ourselves that the economy would grind to a halt without present levels of immigration. The growth rate per capita since 2000 has been far below the level of growth per capita we saw between 1960-2000.
"Who calls for stopping immigration?"
Classic slippery lefty technique...
The fact is the Conservatives Labour and Lib Dems want uncontrolled immigration (all three have overseen record increases),
UKIP want controlled immigration,
BNP etc want no immigration
Two extremes with one sensible party in the middle
Sam, you should know that Conservative policy is not uncontrolled immigration. You give kippers a bad name for not knowing the facts or trying to deceive your audience.
Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem all support free movement within the EU which means the number of immigrants can not be controlled.
That's not true. It's called at 400 million people.
Once all the French have come to the Uk we can all emigrate to a France empty of french people. France occupied by the Brits would be even better than Britain occupied by Brits .....
.... and of course so much better than France occupied by the French.
But between 1500 and 1997, most of the people you'd meet in central London would speak with English accents. That's not true any more.
The Huguenots had a very extensive, and distinctive, presence in London for many decades before they integrated away. Similarly there were lots of people from the low countries who lived in urban England because of the wool trade (I recall reading somewhere that about a third of people in medieval Norwich were Flemish though my memory may be failing me on the exact details). From the 1700s there were also lots of Germans in East London working in the sugar industry.
By the turn of the twentieth century, Limehouse hosted London's Chinatown and there was a very extensive Eastern European (Jewish) presence in East London. I've heard that 19th century Edinburgh was quite cosmopolitan, in terms of the West European accents (French, German, Italian) that could be heard there. Obviously the scale of changes post-WW2 was larger, but I don't think there was a magical transformation in 1997.
I'm sure you could hear a handful of foreign accents throughout the time period. But now it's a clear majority of the people you meet.
Depending where you went. There were enclaves of London around 1900 where you'd struggle to hear English spoken at all. But ditto for 1700.
I know what you mean. I used to live around the Fens, and there are quaint old English market towns you can now wander around for hours and hear only a soundtrack of Polish, Lithuanian, Portuguese and Romanian, and that transition came in very quickly. (The Portuguese appearing in significant numbers in the 1980s or so, but a massive acceleration in the arrival of the East European communities in the early and mid 2000s.) But I don't believe London's transition came on like a lightbulb in 1997. Banglatown is only a short walk from the very centre of London and was well-established by the 1970s.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
But between 1500 and 1997, most of the people you'd meet in central London would speak with English accents. That's not true any more.
Hmmm, I think you're wrong. I lived in London between 1991 and 1995, and 'Central London' has always been very, very touristy. A favoured game used to be 'fox the Yank' - give American tourists incorrect directions.
I would like to examine if/when Corbyn become leader, and he does take Labour to the General Election in 2020 where are his votes going to come from.
General Election 2015
Tories - 36.8% UKIP - 12.7%
Lib Dems - 7.9%
Labour - 30.5% SNP - 4.7% Green - 3.8% Plaid Cymru - 0.6%
Northern Ireland Parties - 2.4% Other - 0.6%
So that breaks down as:
Right Wing - 49.5%
Center - 7.9%
Left - 39.6%
Other/NI - 3.0%
Now i know using terms such as left and right can be quite ambiguous (just look at Labour, they have every kind of left infighting at the moment).
However, with 49.5% voting right at 2015, the possibility of those switching to back Corbyn at 2020 is so limited due to the fact that Labour are shifting further and further from the right. UKIP voters will be heavily put off by the fact that Corbynomics goes against everything UKIP stand for economically, let alone touching his views on immigration, something which drives the UKIP support. Granted Corbyn has repeatedly refused to rule out his leaving the EU, leading to some to believe he may be pro exit. However this is unlikely to swing many over to the red side giving how nearly every other Corbyn policy is so unkeeping with UKIP ideology.
The Tories 36.8% is the largest source of potential red votes, however with Corbyn at the helm I think this is also limited. My personal belief is that the Tories won a majority as Labour was not trusted with the economy and cutting the deficit is seen as a matter of great importance. So Corbyns anti-austerity measures are going to have limited appeal to those who were happy to vote Tory after 5 years of belt tightening. Tories have the nickname the Nasty Party for a reason, people know what they get with the Conservatives.
Lib Dems, well are there any votes to steal at all? 2015 was the lowest vote share for the Lib Dems ever, and the lowest for the Liberals since 1970. I can't see them going any lower, a new leader is at helm and recent by-elections look promising for the Lib-Dems, and point towards a mild rebuild of the vote share. I doubt that we will see a powerful Lib-Dems come 2020 but i can really see them climbing to 12-14%, especially if Labour lurches to the left.
So this leaves the left wing votes at 39.6% - 4.7% locked away with the dominate SNP and i really can't see that dropping too much. The SNP are a government who can act like an opposition. Granted the SNP are probably the closest party to Corbyns ideology, but with SNP support still growing, how much of Scotland Labour can win back is very much debatable.
The Greens do share similar policies with Corbyn but only polling 3.8% and 1 seat there are few votes to steal, even more so with Plaid Cymru.
So the question next is, if Corbyn is going to really struggle to steal votes, how many and where might he lose current votes to?
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang ...........
all weekend......... well done.
Is it worth pointing out that by September 11th Labour will have been comprehensively screwing themselves for four months without respite?
Indeed, fourteen years to the day since the Conservatives weren't able to announce the election of Iain Duncan Smith after another party in a brewery job.
I think that's in one of Dominic Sandbrook's books, he spends a big chunk in one saying that for the average person in the mid-70s, things were nearer to how we imagine the 60s to be.
I think you're right. He certainly makes the point in "Never Had It So Good" that the 1960s were more like the 1950s. Cracking book, incidentally, highly recommended.
(There's only one critical view on amazon: "On delivery, this book was somewhat damaged: Front and back covers both had creases in it and the corners were covered with ink." They really ought to sort out their review system. Ignore Mrs Sayer-Jones, it's even a good book if the cover's damaged!)
FWIW I left London in 1994 and returned to it in 2004 (apart from a couple of brief visits in the centre). In that time areas such as Acton, Wood Green, Islington and Finsbury Park had radically changed in that there were far fewer people with roots from Ireland and the Caribbean and instead were noticeable numbers of people from Eastern Europe.
I think that's in one of Dominic Sandbrook's books, he spends a big chunk in one saying that for the average person in the mid-70s, things were nearer to how we imagine the 60s to be.
I think you're right. He certainly makes the point in "Never Had It So Good" that the 1960s were more like the 1950s. Cracking book, incidentally, highly recommended.
Never had it So Good was his one on the 50s. The 60s was White Heat, then it was State of Emergency and Seasons in the Sun. All superb. And impossible to reconcile with the slightly unhinged bloke who writes double page spread essays on political correctness for the Daily Mail every now and again.
Off topic, but on the subject of immigration, The Wife and me broke the habit of a life time and had a long weekend bang in the middle of London, and very pleasurable it was, too. We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant. The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Central London isn't really an English city any more. If you went to the East End, it would be a very different picture to what you see on Eastenders!
London was founded by Italians, refounded by Germans, and Danes, and first properly fortified by the French. It's always been *different* in that way to the rest of the UK.
But between 1500 and 1997, most of the people you'd meet in central London would speak with English accents. That's not true any more.
Hmmm, I think you're wrong. I lived in London between 1991 and 1995, and 'Central London' has always been very, very touristy. A favoured game used to be 'fox the Yank' - give American tourists incorrect directions.
Nothing wrong with lots of tourists, of course. In fact, I welcome it: the more the merrier.
It's mass immigration leading to permanent residency and unwanted socio-cultural change that they object to.
"I was reading the PB archives and saw one of PB's social historians making a comment along the lines of "for most people the 1960s looked like the our vision of the 1950s people, and for most people the 1970s looked like our image of the 1960s". Can't remember who it was, though, was it you? I meant to point them in the direction of the Varian Rule in economics, which would support their argument:
The Varian Rule holds that "A simple way to forecast the future is to look at what rich people have today; middle-income people will have something equivalent in 10 years, and poor people will have it in an additional decade." It is attributed to Google’s chief economist Hal Varian. The origin of the term is credited to Andrew McAfee of the Financial Times.
Some notable examples include anti-lock braking systems, electronic stability control systems and airbags which first appeared on high-end luxury vehicles before becoming commoditized on more mainstream automobiles."
I think that's in one of Dominic Sandbrook's books, he spends a big chunk in one saying that for the average person in the mid-70s, things were nearer to how we imagine the 60s to be.
I can't remember who it was here but I think Sandbrook initiated the concept, particularly around mores. His notion being that the sixties did not really swing for the average British person outside central London. I also think from my reading of historians that most of the 50s was a lot like the 40s... But I'm sure the 80s were the 80s even though I can't actually remember them.
Will future readers just assume the average person in the 1990s already had internet, and the average person in the 2000s already had smartphones that they used for everything?
FWIW I left London in 1994 and returned to it in 2004 (apart from a couple of brief visits in the centre). In that time areas such as Acton, Wood Green, Islington and Finsbury Park had radically changed in that there were far fewer people with roots from Ireland and the Caribbean and instead were noticeable numbers of people from Eastern Europe.
When I were a lad in Camden/Islington in the 70s and 80s, every other person seemed to be Irish. God knows where they have all gone.
I think that's in one of Dominic Sandbrook's books, he spends a big chunk in one saying that for the average person in the mid-70s, things were nearer to how we imagine the 60s to be.
I think you're right. He certainly makes the point in "Never Had It So Good" that the 1960s were more like the 1950s. Cracking book, incidentally, highly recommended.
Never had it So Good was his one on the 50s. The 60s was White Heat, then it was State of Emergency and Seasons in the Sun. All superb. And impossible to reconcile with the slightly unhinged bloke who writes double page spread essays on political correctness for the Daily Mail every now and again.
It ends in the early 60s, coincident with the onset of 'swinging sixties' so it could be there
'Different to' is incorrect, colloquial English. It just happens to be widely used. It's a bit like the idea of 'firing arrows.'
I think it's at the very least making the transition to being considered correct, which can only happen by people continuing to use it. Even educated people are using it regularly in formal contexts, which must mark a fairly late stage in its transition if it hasn't made it already. Interestingly it's mostly in British English, rarely heard in American English. But since "different to" has been used by serious writers from the times of Jane Austen ("How different to your brother and to mine" - Northanger Abbey) I don't think it's going to go away.
I think that's in one of Dominic Sandbrook's books, he spends a big chunk in one saying that for the average person in the mid-70s, things were nearer to how we imagine the 60s to be.
I think you're right. He certainly makes the point in "Never Had It So Good" that the 1960s were more like the 1950s. Cracking book, incidentally, highly recommended.
Never had it So Good was his one on the 50s. The 60s was White Heat, then it was State of Emergency and Seasons in the Sun. All superb. And impossible to reconcile with the slightly unhinged bloke who writes double page spread essays on political correctness for the Daily Mail every now and again.
I seem to recall that he makes that point in Never Had It So Good to justify why he classes 1963 as part of "The Fifties".
The Varian Rule holds that "A simple way to forecast the future is to look at what rich people have today; middle-income people will have something equivalent in 10 years, and poor people will have it in an additional decade." It is attributed to Google’s chief economist Hal Varian. The origin of the term is credited to Andrew McAfee of the Financial Times.
Some notable examples include anti-lock braking systems, electronic stability control systems and airbags which first appeared on high-end luxury vehicles before becoming commoditized on more mainstream automobiles.
Mostly true, but there are noticeable exceptions. I don't see many middle-income people being able to live in 5 bedroom detached houses in London as a matter of course within the next ten years.
FWIW I left London in 1994 and returned to it in 2004 (apart from a couple of brief visits in the centre). In that time areas such as Acton, Wood Green, Islington and Finsbury Park had radically changed in that there were far fewer people with roots from Ireland and the Caribbean and instead were noticeable numbers of people from Eastern Europe.
When I were a lad in Camden/Islington in the 70s and 80s, every other person seemed to be Irish. God knows where they have all gone.
You might notice a lot of well-integrated people running the trade unions, with ethnic names like Frances O'Grady, Len McCluskey and Paul Kenny. (I couldn't swear to be sure about Daves Prentis and Ward.)
The Varian Rule holds that "A simple way to forecast the future is to look at what rich people have today; middle-income people will have something equivalent in 10 years, and poor people will have it in an additional decade." It is attributed to Google’s chief economist Hal Varian. The origin of the term is credited to Andrew McAfee of the Financial Times.
Some notable examples include anti-lock braking systems, electronic stability control systems and airbags which first appeared on high-end luxury vehicles before becoming commoditized on more mainstream automobiles.
Mostly true, but there are noticeable exceptions. I don't see many middle-income people being able to live in 5 bedroom detached houses in London as a matter of course within the next ten years.
Very true! I think it's mostly intended for consumer goods and technology.
Yorkshire CC are playing Essex in Chelmsford bedecked in the the glorious Purple and Gold of UKIP
Are Yorkshire resigned or unresigned to losing this match ?
They offered to let someone else take on the mighty Essex but there was no one better qualified
Doesn't matter, because the next round is already decided by off-field events.
If the mighty 'Corporal' Klinger returns from Oz, whichever side gets through will be hammered by the Cider drinkers. If he doesn't, they will win by about nine wickets or 500 runs, depending on which side bats first.
Off topic, this morning I watched a documentary about Frances Farmer followed by her "This Is Your Life" appearance.. anybody familiar with her/her story?
Once all the French have come to the Uk we can all emigrate to a France empty of french people. France occupied by the Brits would be even better than Britain occupied by Brits .....
.... and of course so much better than France occupied by the French.
I think that's in one of Dominic Sandbrook's books, he spends a big chunk in one saying that for the average person in the mid-70s, things were nearer to how we imagine the 60s to be.
I think you're right. He certainly makes the point in "Never Had It So Good" that the 1960s were more like the 1950s. Cracking book, incidentally, highly recommended.
Never had it So Good was his one on the 50s. The 60s was White Heat, then it was State of Emergency and Seasons in the Sun. All superb. And impossible to reconcile with the slightly unhinged bloke who writes double page spread essays on political correctness for the Daily Mail every now and again.
I seem to recall that he makes that point in Never Had It So Good to justify why he classes 1963 as part of "The Fifties".
Maybe - but its definitely a central theme in his books on the 70s. Things like the pill and acceptance of single parents, couples living together before marriage etc only became widespread outside fashionable London in the early 70s.
Comments
We stayed at a (for us at least) a posh hotel, the Waldorf in Aldwych, saw a show, did the tourist thing, and paid a mortgage to eat at a posh restaurant.
The thing that struck me was that pretty much all of the hotel staff, bar staff, ticket sellers, shop workers, market stall holders, buskers and street performers and theatre staff were all speaking in foreign accents. It was quite an eyeopener to see just how mulicultural London was, and I say that as someone who works in Leicester!
Also if you are an non-EU member, and you obtain an National ID care in any other member state, we are required to admit them as members of the EU.
You said:
"I'd love a politician to say the truth - migration is a good thing and we should be proud of the fact people choose to live in our country. But that really is a pipe dream that is never going to happen."
A politician in the news at the moment has said exactly that... he just happens to be from a different party to the one you are a cheerleader for, so you twisted and turned and said "I had my fingers crossed"
The migration issues we are facing are world wide and how we solve them if we can needs a world wide solution.
EDIT: Even if we left the EU we'd still be members of the ECHR.
The odd thing is the people who are most vociferous about leaving the EU because they say it would mean we could deal with immigration more effectively seem to be massively more exercised by non-EU (and in particular muslim) immigration than about EU workers. It's a massive disconnect.'
But staying in the EU is worst of both worlds, unrestricted immigration from the EU and the inability to deport non EU immigrants due to the ECHR.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106538
Edit - I see Mr Thompson made this same point earlier on.
I expect the message getting back to the refugee camps holding millions of people on the Syrian borders.
You are comparing apples and orangutans.
With banking there are all sorts of checks: if you make a payment you confirm it with a digital signature, you see the result on the screen, and you can confirm it on a statement later. The person receiving the payment also confirms that they received it. And you can complain and get your money back if there is a problem that is not your fault.
None of this applies, or is possible, with e-voting.
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area
Until someone has an EU passport, then they cannot come to the UK on an EU ID card.
Prior to 1955, i suspect the figure never topped 10-20% throughout London's entire history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area
Snap.
BTW: I'd like to thank you on the really excellent post you did on private sector reforms earlier.
I don;t think anybody minds immigrants who come here to work.
For the public, immigration is a much more nuanced and complex issue than for Westminster.
Many in the bubble don;t really see the difference between a warlord, a dentist, a petty criminal and an engineer.
For the public, there is a world of difference. Some immigrants the public really likes. Others, it really hates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area
Do you have a stronger source than Wikipedia ? On balance I will take the official UK Border Force website over a Wikipedia entry without supporting primary source.
It's kind of beside the point when you consider
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/10699637/EU-citizenship-for-sale-to-non-Europeans-in-Bulgaria-for-as-little-as-150000.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531995/Hundreds-thousands-outside-EU-head-UK-passport-loophole.html
It's 'different FROM', people. 'Different FROM'. Not, 'different to'.
Merely because a bunch of barely literate journalists who in my school would not be permitted to sit English A-level are incapable of formulating a sentence correctly is no reason to let standards slip on PB.
We iz all caperbull of speking the Kween's Inglish on yurr, izn't uz?
By the turn of the twentieth century, Limehouse hosted London's Chinatown and there was a very extensive Eastern European (Jewish) presence in East London. I've heard that 19th century Edinburgh was quite cosmopolitan, in terms of the West European accents (French, German, Italian) that could be heard there. Obviously the scale of changes post-WW2 was larger, but I don't think there was a magical transformation in 1997.
Your correct.
*ducks*
Austria: A permanent residence in the country during 10 years is required. Dual citizenship is NOT allowed.
Belgium: requires 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed.
Bulgaria: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed.
Czech Republic: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed since 2014.
Denmark: 9 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed.
Finland: 6 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed.
France: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed.
Germany: 8 years of residence, can be reduced to 7 or even 6 with integration and language courses. Dual citizenship is NOT allowed. [Not fully accurate, it's allowed for EU countries and there are exceptions. This might also be subject to change under the new government.]
Greece: 10 years, dual citizenship is allowed.
Hungary: 8 years, dual citizenship is allowed.
Iceland: 7 years, dual citizenship is allowed.
Ireland: Permanent residence in the country during 5 out of 9 years is required. You must be a resident during the year before applying [thanks Vijay Sankaran]. Dual citizenship is allowed.
Italy: 10 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed.
Latvia: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed.
Lithuania: 10 years of residence are required. Dual citizenship is NOT allowed.
Luxembourg: 10 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed.
Malta: 5 years of permanent residence (usually following 5 years of temporary residence as noted by Bence Zakonyi), dual citizenship is allowed.
Netherlands: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed [exceptions are common as noted by Jeannine van der Linden].
Norway: 7 of the last 10 years, dual citizenship is NOT allowed.
Poland: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is NOT allowed.
Portugal: 6 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed.
Romania: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed.
Slovakia: 8 years of residence are required. Dual citizenship is NOT
allowed any more [thanks Zuzana Soročinová].
Slovenia: 10 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed.
Spain: 10 years of residence are required. This requirement can be reduced to 2 years (but not waived) in case of nationals from a former colony of Spain (it covers a number of Latin American countries and the Philippines). Dual citizenship is allowed for the latter group only [thanks Guillermo López López].
Sweden: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed.
Switzerland: 12 years of residence (time between age 10 and 20 counts twice), dual citizenship is allowed.
United Kingdom: 5 years of residence, dual citizenship is allowed. Paradoxically, 6 years for EU/EEA citizens - and everyone not free of "immigration time restrictions" 12 months prior to applying [thanks Ashley Connor].
*gets up, shouts loudly, sits down again*
EDIT - Mr R. Smithson, before my blood pressure does another rocket, would you please check the opening line of your informative post on minimum length of residency required by divers EU countries? The word after 'here' may be of interest.
£250,000 investor status
Your numbers seem incorrect.
Sweden only requires four years of residence:
http://www.migrationsverket.se/English/Private-individuals/Becoming-a-Swedish-citizen/Citizenship-for-adults/Time-in-Sweden.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/10699637/EU-citizenship-for-sale-to-non-Europeans-in-Bulgaria-for-as-little-as-150000.html
They were however invaders and not welcomed by the resident population at the time.
The result of a having a Conservative, Labour or Lib Dem Govt is to have record levels of immigration
UKIP want a lower level
BNP want to stop it altogether
So two extremes and a middle way
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/01/different-from-than-to/
I was reading the PB archives and saw one of PB's social historians making a comment along the lines of "for most people the 1960s looked like the our vision of the 1950s people, and for most people the 1970s looked like our image of the 1960s". Can't remember who it was, though, was it you? I meant to point them in the direction of the Varian Rule in economics, which would support their argument:
The Varian Rule holds that "A simple way to forecast the future is to look at what rich people have today; middle-income people will have something equivalent in 10 years, and poor people will have it in an additional decade." It is attributed to Google’s chief economist Hal Varian. The origin of the term is credited to Andrew McAfee of the Financial Times.
Some notable examples include anti-lock braking systems, electronic stability control systems and airbags which first appeared on high-end luxury vehicles before becoming commoditized on more mainstream automobiles.
True, the village is on a tourist route that many continentals travel in the summer - you can be walking along a single-track road and be passed by a dozen Dutch motorhomes in convoy. But I'm surprised that people would come to work in a place which, whilst superbly beautiful, is in the arse end of beyond.
Of course, in 1066 William had the Pope's permission and endorsement for the invasion of England, so it was technically the target of a crusade - the first ever, indeed.
'Different to' is incorrect, colloquial English. It just happens to be widely used. It's a bit like the idea of 'firing arrows.'
I think you're misreading the UKBF site. It says "if you are from an EEA country", which I think means citizenship.
Your links were interesting. Especially this bit:
"David Cameron was urged earlier this week by 90 senior Tories to re–impose controls on Bulgarian and Romanian migrants or risk social unrest. They demanded that the Prime Minister use a little-known clause in EU law that allows governments to continue with border controls if their country is ‘undergoing or foresees serious labour market disturbances’."
The Varian Rule holds that "A simple way to forecast the future is to look at what rich people have today; middle-income people will have something equivalent in 10 years, and poor people will have it in an additional decade." It is attributed to Google’s chief economist Hal Varian. The origin of the term is credited to Andrew McAfee of the Financial Times.
Some notable examples include anti-lock braking systems, electronic stability control systems and airbags which first appeared on high-end luxury vehicles before becoming commoditized on more mainstream automobiles."
I think that's in one of Dominic Sandbrook's books, he spends a big chunk in one saying that for the average person in the mid-70s, things were nearer to how we imagine the 60s to be.
Once all the French have come to the Uk we can all emigrate to a France empty of french people. France occupied by the Brits would be even better than Britain occupied by Brits .....
.... and of course so much better than France occupied by the French.
I know what you mean. I used to live around the Fens, and there are quaint old English market towns you can now wander around for hours and hear only a soundtrack of Polish, Lithuanian, Portuguese and Romanian, and that transition came in very quickly. (The Portuguese appearing in significant numbers in the 1980s or so, but a massive acceleration in the arrival of the East European communities in the early and mid 2000s.) But I don't believe London's transition came on like a lightbulb in 1997. Banglatown is only a short walk from the very centre of London and was well-established by the 1970s.
The Conservative policy on immigration is a reduction, no ifs and no buts. They have succeeded in achieving a negative reduction. Don't be so fussy.
General Election 2015
Tories - 36.8%
UKIP - 12.7%
Lib Dems - 7.9%
Labour - 30.5%
SNP - 4.7%
Green - 3.8%
Plaid Cymru - 0.6%
Northern Ireland Parties - 2.4%
Other - 0.6%
So that breaks down as:
Right Wing - 49.5%
Center - 7.9%
Left - 39.6%
Other/NI - 3.0%
Now i know using terms such as left and right can be quite ambiguous (just look at Labour, they have every kind of left infighting at the moment).
However, with 49.5% voting right at 2015, the possibility of those switching to back Corbyn at 2020 is so limited due to the fact that Labour are shifting further and further from the right. UKIP voters will be heavily put off by the fact that Corbynomics goes against everything UKIP stand for economically, let alone touching his views on immigration, something which drives the UKIP support. Granted Corbyn has repeatedly refused to rule out his leaving the EU, leading to some to believe he may be pro exit. However this is unlikely to swing many over to the red side giving how nearly every other Corbyn policy is so unkeeping with UKIP ideology.
The Tories 36.8% is the largest source of potential red votes, however with Corbyn at the helm I think this is also limited. My personal belief is that the Tories won a majority as Labour was not trusted with the economy and cutting the deficit is seen as a matter of great importance. So Corbyns anti-austerity measures are going to have limited appeal to those who were happy to vote Tory after 5 years of belt tightening. Tories have the nickname the Nasty Party for a reason, people know what they get with the Conservatives.
Lib Dems, well are there any votes to steal at all? 2015 was the lowest vote share for the Lib Dems ever, and the lowest for the Liberals since 1970. I can't see them going any lower, a new leader is at helm and recent by-elections look promising for the Lib-Dems, and point towards a mild rebuild of the vote share. I doubt that we will see a powerful Lib-Dems come 2020 but i can really see them climbing to 12-14%, especially if Labour lurches to the left.
So this leaves the left wing votes at 39.6% - 4.7% locked away with the dominate SNP and i really can't see that dropping too much. The SNP are a government who can act like an opposition. Granted the SNP are probably the closest party to Corbyns ideology, but with SNP support still growing, how much of Scotland Labour can win back is very much debatable.
The Greens do share similar policies with Corbyn but only polling 3.8% and 1 seat there are few votes to steal, even more so with Plaid Cymru.
So the question next is, if Corbyn is going to really struggle to steal votes, how many and where might he lose current votes to?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11502577/Ed-Milibands-shameful-immigration-mug-attacked-by-Diane-Abbott.html
Mine turned out to be a tacky white and red one, should I ask for the money back?
(There's only one critical view on amazon: "On delivery, this book was somewhat damaged: Front and back covers both had creases in it and the corners were covered with ink." They really ought to sort out their review system. Ignore Mrs Sayer-Jones, it's even a good book if the cover's damaged!)
It's mass immigration leading to permanent residency and unwanted socio-cultural change that they object to.
Will future readers just assume the average person in the 1990s already had internet, and the average person in the 2000s already had smartphones that they used for everything?
I don't see many middle-income people being able to live in 5 bedroom detached houses in London as a matter of course within the next ten years.
If the mighty 'Corporal' Klinger returns from Oz, whichever side gets through will be hammered by the Cider drinkers. If he doesn't, they will win by about nine wickets or 500 runs, depending on which side bats first.
This is your Life was brutal!