Yeah but when push comes to shove, they'll bottle it again.
For sure - I suggest that if Calum wants a poll to keep him warm he heads down to the Burke and Hare in Edinburgh - some cracking Hungarians in there too.
Never been one to get too excited about immigration.
I find it odd some PB Tories are rattled by it.
Dave did promise to bring net migration down to tens of thousands. its just he forgot to mention it had hit at an all time peak of 33 ten thousands in the previous 12 months just 37 days before GE2015
50% of the UK public think immigration is one of the top issues facing the UK. If you write off half the public as 'PB Tories' then you will lose elections.
Yes I agree. Its probably worth looking as well at the breakdown of migration. This does not affect the numbers but it is still worthwhile. The ONS provisional estimates for 2014, plucked at random, say 193,000 (30%) came for formal study. This is a big number from out of the whole and I guess will stay somewhat the same with a regular churn of people coming and leaving. Just 108,000 came looking for work as opposed to 178,000 with jobs. Something around 80,000 are UK citizens returning home.
I strongly suspect that the number is well low of the "real" number, so it's useful for showing a trend, but should be treated with suspicion. It won't include the probably thousands of people that successfully stow away in trucks, or break through the chunnel defenses, or are delivered into quiet harbours on moonless nights and then disappear into our black economy.
The passenger survey is based on about 5000 interviews. It must have pretty wide Confidence intervals.
Yeah but when push comes to shove, they'll bottle it again.
For the same reason I have laid lot of my Corbyn winning profit.
I am far from convinced he is a certainty especially If the number of people who told me they were voting Corbyn who then bottled it when the 1,2,3 forms arrived is representative.
I did a bit of greening up on Andy and some more on Yvette today too.
An elephant's bladder can hold nearly 5 gallons (18 liters) of fluid, and yet, it can pee just as quickly as a cat.
A new study reveals that most mammals larger than rats urinate for about the same amount of time: 21 seconds. That's because their urethras are appropriately scaled to be a "flow-enhancing device," the researchers said.
If it could keep it up at that rate, the lamb would shake its tail 100,000,000 a second. Assuming one shake is moving to one side and back, then the tip of the tail would traverse approx 1 metre in a shake. So in one second the tip of a lamb's tail would traverse approx 100,000,000 metres, which is one-third the speed of light. I don't think 0.3c is big enough to cause noticeable relativistic mass distortion, but you would have some time distortion.
If we assume that this frolicsome lamb has a tail weighing 1 kg, then it's moving 1 kg thru 100,000,000 metres in 1 second. So in one second it is doing 1 * 10^8 * ^ 10^8/1 joules of work, that's 1*10^16 joules. Since it's doing it in one second, conversion to watts is easy: it's 1*10^16 watts. So our industrious lamb is using power equivalent to one-tenth the amount of sunlight hitting the entire earth
On Sagan's formula for the Kardashev scale, the lamb would have a Kardashev rating of K=(logten of 10^16)-6/10= (16-6)/10 = 1, so Mary's little friend is a Type I civilisation in its own right and is generating more power than the whole of human civilisation in 1973 (K=0.7)...
...so has everybody stopped calling each other arseholes yet?
If it could keep it up at that rate, the lamb would shake its tail 100,000,000 a second. Assuming one shake is moving to one side and back, then the tip of the tail would traverse approx 1 metre in a shake. So in one second the tip of a lamb's tail would traverse approx 100,000,000 metres, which is one-third the speed of light. I don't think 0.3c is big enough to cause noticeable relativistic mass distortion, but you would have some time distortion.
If we assume that this frolicsome lamb has a tail weighing 1 kg, then it's moving 1 kg thru 100,000,000 metres in 1 second. So in one second it is doing 1 * 10^8 * ^ 10^8/1 joules of work, that's 1*10^16 joules. Since it's doing it in one second, conversion to watts is easy: it's 1*10^16 watts. So our industrious lamb is using power equivalent to one-tenth the amount of sunlight hitting the entire earth
On Sagan's formula for the Kardashev scale, the lamb would have a Kardashev rating of K=(logten of 10^16)-6/10= (16-6)/10 = 1, so Mary's little friend is a Type I civilisation in its own right and is generating more power than the whole of human civilisation in 1973 (K=0.7)...
...so has everybody stopped calling each other arseholes yet?
''Yep,even if we take a low number like ten thousand,what does that solve ? The mass immigration to Europe will continue until the EU countries get tough policies and get some control of the situation. ''
For me its not a question of numbers, but of quality. The authorities seem incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Yeah but when push comes to shove, they'll bottle it again.
Would you like to write a guest thread on that?
Is there a fee ?
No, but think of the warmth you'll get from the Cybernats. That's priceless
I get the feeling that positions have hardened on both sides with a few switchers in both directions. If the ref were re-run tomorrow, I would expect a very similar result to last time.
That's a rather staggering article. It suggests that a literacy and culture test would be enough to eradicate cultural issues in the new population. How naive can you be? In addition, it suggests German taxpayers can be protected from the costs of immigration by banning immigrants from getting benefits. It is quite obvious if that were done then Vox would be advocating for them to get benefits.
Yes I agree. Its probably worth looking as well at the breakdown of migration. This does not affect the numbers but it is still worthwhile. The ONS provisional estimates for 2014, plucked at random, say 193,000 (30%) came for formal study. This is a big number from out of the whole and I guess will stay somewhat the same with a regular churn of people coming and leaving. Just 108,000 came looking for work as opposed to 178,000 with jobs. Something around 80,000 are UK citizens returning home.
I strongly suspect that the number is well low of the "real" number, so it's useful for showing a trend, but should be treated with suspicion. It won't include the probably thousands of people that successfully stow away in trucks, or break through the chunnel defenses, or are delivered into quiet harbours on moonless nights and then disappear into our black economy.
The passenger survey is based on about 5000 interviews. It must have pretty wide Confidence intervals.
I suspect its hugely damaged by a self-selecting sample. If you were coming to the UK with a questionable immigration status or without a job would you be happy filling in a questionnaire at the airport ? My concern is more the people that would never come close to such a survey because they get dropped off by a blacked out boat somewhere off the coast of Devon or Norfolk, or arrive in any number of trucks which manage to avoid being searched.
Personally I am less concerned with the actual numbers that the pandering to unlawful behaviour by accepting people who arrive in the country through improper channels and then subsequently never deporting them when they fail their asylum application. Its a huge moral hazard, and its monstrously unfair on the people who have filled out a proper application for immigration and/or asylum at one of our embassies and has to wait months for their application to be processed because immigration is overwhelmed by the illegal applications.
My final complaint here is that the large number of illegal economic migrants puts pressure on the government to reduce the numbers, and the government being apparently powerless to do anything about them, cracks down on the LAWFUL applications such as college students or spousal applications instead, which is a complete disgrace.
Merkel should be reminded that the UK took many refugees from Europe,in the 30s.. mainly Jewish and mainly from Germany..
Actually there weren't that many German Jews rescued to the UK from Hitlerland in the late 30's:
"By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America, with the largest numbers entering Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. More than 18,000 Jews from the German Reich were also able to find refuge in Shanghai, in Japanese-occupied China."
If it could keep it up at that rate, the lamb would shake its tail 100,000,000 a second. Assuming one shake is moving to one side and back, then the tip of the tail would traverse approx 1 metre in a shake. So in one second the tip of a lamb's tail would traverse approx 100,000,000 metres, which is one-third the speed of light. I don't think 0.3c is big enough to cause noticeable relativistic mass distortion, but you would have some time distortion.
If we assume that this frolicsome lamb has a tail weighing 1 kg, then it's moving 1 kg thru 100,000,000 metres in 1 second. So in one second it is doing 1 * 10^8 * ^ 10^8/1 joules of work, that's 1*10^16 joules. Since it's doing it in one second, conversion to watts is easy: it's 1*10^16 watts. So our industrious lamb is using power equivalent to one-tenth the amount of sunlight hitting the entire earth
On Sagan's formula for the Kardashev scale, the lamb would have a Kardashev rating of K=(logten of 10^16)-6/10= (16-6)/10 = 1, so Mary's little friend is a Type I civilisation in its own right and is generating more power than the whole of human civilisation in 1973 (K=0.7)...
...so has everybody stopped calling each other arseholes yet?
Germany’s Social Democratic Party is calling for an immigration law that would control the influx of workers from non-EU countries with the help of a point system, similar to that in Canada, but Chancellor Angela Merkel is cutting the debate short, saying the refugee issue is more urgent. EurActiv Germany reports.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has put on the brakes in the debate over an immigration law in Germany.
What is she planning to do with the 90% of those refugees that turn out to have no case for claiming asylum ?
Allow them to travel across and out of Germany to 'somewhere else' (i.e. Britain), under Schengen?
We are not in Schengen. Can they travel legally under Schengen?
I take your point about the legality of travelling under Schengen, but since they're arriving en masse in Germany from elsewhere the whole agreement seems irrelevant now.
I agree - Schengen is becoming irrelevant in that it was not meant to deal with these large numbers. It tries to behave like one country eg the USA, when Europe is not. The other point is that it is leading to people dying in the backs of lorries. It is facilitating crime and people smuggling. Schengen has always been a crazy system and its one reason why we should not leave the EU - since if we did then any sunsiquent deal might mean we end up having to join it. People coming to Europe see it as one big open continent. This may be the fault of the EU it may be the warped perceptions of the migrants. But it is not. Economic migrants, illegal travellers and asylum seekers should stay in the county they land in. It is their responsibility. Not ours. Especially as we are not part of Schengen.
@jantalipinski: I get there's a meaningful discussion to be had on economic migration but let's just ignore that for a bit and help kids fleeing war. Please
If it could keep it up at that rate, the lamb would shake its tail 100,000,000 a second. Assuming one shake is moving to one side and back, then the tip of the tail would traverse approx 1 metre in a shake. So in one second the tip of a lamb's tail would traverse approx 100,000,000 metres, which is one-third the speed of light. I don't think 0.3c is big enough to cause noticeable relativistic mass distortion, but you would have some time distortion.
If we assume that this frolicsome lamb has a tail weighing 1 kg, then it's moving 1 kg thru 100,000,000 metres in 1 second. So in one second it is doing 1 * 10^8 * ^ 10^8/1 joules of work, that's 1*10^16 joules. Since it's doing it in one second, conversion to watts is easy: it's 1*10^16 watts. So our industrious lamb is using power equivalent to one-tenth the amount of sunlight hitting the entire earth
On Sagan's formula for the Kardashev scale, the lamb would have a Kardashev rating of K=(logten of 10^16)-6/10= (16-6)/10 = 1, so Mary's little friend is a Type I civilisation in its own right and is generating more power than the whole of human civilisation in 1973 (K=0.7)...
...so has everybody stopped calling each other arseholes yet?
Schengen has always been a crazy system and its one reason why we should not leave the EU - since if we did then any sunsiquent deal might mean we end up having to join it.
Yes indeed. I remember it well when South Korea signed its Free Trade Agreement with the EU, they had to join Schengen, mind you they were less upset about it than the Mexicans.
Yes I agree. Its probably worth looking as well at the breakdown of migration. This does not affect the numbers but it is still worthwhile. The ONS provisional estimates for 2014, plucked at random, say 193,000 (30%) came for formal study. This is a big number from out of the whole and I guess will stay somewhat the same with a regular churn of people coming and leaving. Just 108,000 came looking for work as opposed to 178,000 with jobs. Something around 80,000 are UK citizens returning home.
I strongly suspect that the number is well low of the "real" number, so it's useful for showing a trend, but should be treated with suspicion. It won't include the probably thousands of people that successfully stow away in trucks, or break through the chunnel defenses, or are delivered into quiet harbours on moonless nights and then disappear into our black economy.
Illegal migration is just that illegal. It is not acceptable. But as we do not know the scale no one can say 'probably' what it is. Illegal immigration was not part of the point I was making however.
One aspect that we need to grapple with is that people don't all have the same concerns. Some people ARE worried about numbers - they think that immigration overloads the NHS, roads, housing, schools, etc. They are to some extent appeased if it's shown that the same people staff the NHS, help build more roads, etc. They don't necessarily care whether the building workers are Muslims or only eat halal or ignore local social groups. Others, like yourselves, aren't especially worried by numbers, but about culture. Others feel a more nebulous unease about rapid change - they hear a lot of languages on the bus and it doesn't feel like home any more. There can be a bit of racism in that, but not necessarily - some people are fine with West Indians talking broad Cockney or Brummie, but unhappy about Bulgarians.
We don't have to share all or any of these concerns, but to discuss the issue sensibly we need to know they exist. IMO the real burning issue is the sense of loss of control. Tony Blair once put it to me this way (recalled from memory, probably not exact words): "If we announced we were going to give asylum to X more refugees every year, people would accept it. What scares them is reports of people coming through the Chunnel hanging onto the undercarriage of trains and stuff like that, as they think it means we've lost control. People will tolerate a government doing things that they don't necessarily like, but they won't tolerate a government that has lost its grip."
It's a mixture of all these concerns though, isn't it Nick, with different people rating concerns more or less important depending on where they live etc. So you might be less worried about culture if the numbers are lower; one foreign language on the bus is exotic and exciting whereas everyone not speaking English makes you feel like a stranger in your own country.
It is about control but I would posit that what people want, above all, is for their politicians to place at the top of the factors to take into account when determining the level and type of immigration the interests of the population here first.
Then get their agreement as to:- (a) the numbers of people let in; (b) the types of people let in; and (c) how the economic benefits and costs get shared fairly.
And then - and this simply has not happened to the degree that it must - enforce those rules strictly. So if someone gets here illegally and is not someone we want, they are made to leave. No ifs, buts, endless appeals and the rest of it.
No point having rules and points and controls if they are ignored.
To my mind, none of this has happened or not to the extent that it should.
If it could keep it up at that rate, the lamb would shake its tail 100,000,000 a second. Assuming one shake is moving to one side and back, then the tip of the tail would traverse approx 1 metre in a shake. So in one second the tip of a lamb's tail would traverse approx 100,000,000 metres, which is one-third the speed of light. I don't think 0.3c is big enough to cause noticeable relativistic mass distortion, but you would have some time distortion.
If we assume that this frolicsome lamb has a tail weighing 1 kg, then it's moving 1 kg thru 100,000,000 metres in 1 second. So in one second it is doing 1 * 10^8 * ^ 10^8/1 joules of work, that's 1*10^16 joules. Since it's doing it in one second, conversion to watts is easy: it's 1*10^16 watts. So our industrious lamb is using power equivalent to one-tenth the amount of sunlight hitting the entire earth
On Sagan's formula for the Kardashev scale, the lamb would have a Kardashev rating of K=(logten of 10^16)-6/10= (16-6)/10 = 1, so Mary's little friend is a Type I civilisation in its own right and is generating more power than the whole of human civilisation in 1973 (K=0.7)...
...so has everybody stopped calling each other arseholes yet?
EEA does not require us to admit someone who does not have a job ... I told you this yesterday, and Mr Tyndall has told you this several times and yet you still are not listening.
Err, with all due respect, the ones who are not listening, or perhaps can't read, are yourself and Mr T.
This is what the UK government thinks the free movement of people between the EEA and the EU means:
an EEA national can continue to livein the UK beyond the initial 3 month period for as long as they are a qualified person, or the family member of a qualified person. Regulation 6 defines a qualified person as a jobseeker, worker, self-employed person, self-sufficient person, student
Accordingly, nationals of the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) have the same right as EU citizens to take up an economic activity anywhere in the EU/EEA without being discriminated against on the grounds of their nationality. Equally, EU citizens have the right to work and reside in the EEA EFTA States. Non-economically active persons such as pensioners, students and family members of EEA nationals are also entitled to move and reside anywhere in the EU/EEA subject to certain conditions as set out in the relevant EU legislation.
The Free Movement of Citizens Directive 2004/38/EC[1][2] defines the right of free movement for citizens of the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes the member states of the European Union (EU)....It gives EEA citizens the right of free movement and residence across the European Economic Area, as long as they are not an undue burden on the country of residence and have comprehensive health insurance.[3] This right also extends to close family members that are not EEA citizens. ... The EEA countries have had to implement this directive in full. In Norway this was implemented by changing the Alien Law (Norwegian: utlendingsloven), which entered into force on 1. Jan 2010
How can we make this any easier for you? The regulations for EEA and EU countries as regards free movement are IDENTICAL. They are defined by the Free Movement of Citizens Directive 2004/38/EC.
Shall I archive this post somewhere and repost it daily every time you repeat your nonsense?
So the questions are: what are the criteria for those we decide to let in and how many do we let in?
Merkel's answer to the first question is to say that the criteria should be those who reach over the border first and shout the loudest. Of all the criteria to choose those strike me as the stupidest and least fair and the least moral. Her answer to the second is to say everyone.
She's not a visionary. She's floundering, like everyone else.
There was an article in the Economist, urging Cameron to entrench Conservative hegemony, by following Merkel's example.
The problem is, Merkel isn't very good at much other than holding office. She's adopted truly bad ideas, from the left, like rent controls or phasing out nuclear power, and is now offering an open door to anybody setting foot on European shores.
@jantalipinski: I get there's a meaningful discussion to be had on economic migration but let's just ignore that for a bit and help kids fleeing war. Please
Get us out of the ECHR so we can send them back to Syria in a few years when it calms down, yes. With it in force so they will stay forever and then petition for a couple of dozen other people using family reunion rules and I am less favourable.
Article 8 is getting people killed, kind of ironic for a Human Rights law.
Just for clarification, you are saying 33% extra on top of record levels is
'Not very much at all' ?
Just for clarification, in the context of a country of 64 million with long experience of substantial immigration and emigration, 120,000 a year is not very much at all.
Why give a politicians answer?
Current net migration is 360k
You are saying a 33% increase on that is
'Not very much at all'
Yes or no?
I'm not giving a politician's answer.
To give a non-politician's answer, I think you're framing the question in a statistically invalid way, that you are doing so because you approach the problem from a preconceived mindset and that hell would freeze over before you would ever reach the conclusion that Britain should take more refugees.
I haven't offered an opinion either way on the refugees. It just suits your narrow mind and need to be right to assume it.
How on earth is it statistically invalid to consider an extra 120k on top of an existing 360k as a 33% increase?
It's statistically invalid because you're looking at this on an entirely bogus test. The country's population is 64 million not 360,000. The increase in population is less than 1/500th not 33%.
If we are talking about migration then we are talking about the delta. It's not statistically invalid to talk about the percentage change in the delta. Mind you, it's not invalid to look at migration in terms of change in base population either - they're just two different perspectives. If we look at it from the latter viewpoint, though, we need to change our expectations about what counts as a big number. A 33% increase in what is historically a big delta is clearly pretty big. A 33% increase in base population, though, would be unthinkably, unpredecentedly massive. Even a 5% increase in base population would be unthinkably massive. In fact, even 1% would be huge even if humanly comprehensible. The percentage figure for change on base population might look low ("1/500th" is a satisfyingly small 0.2%) but that doesn't mean its effects would be small.
Well, if you take the 360k net migration, add the 120k that YC appeared to be proposing, you reach statistically significant numbers over, say, a decade, no matter how you measure it. That's a population increase of 13ish percent, over and above the natural increase in the UK population (it's 4.8 million in absolute terms, for the numerically challenged).
Mike K What were the relevant countries populations at that time and how would it compare to today's populations allowing for the massive population growth.
Douglas Carswell refuses to deny he has voted for Jeremy Corbyn Ukip's only MP has been reported by a Labour researcher for signing up to vote in the Labour Leadeship election
@jantalipinski: I get there's a meaningful discussion to be had on economic migration but let's just ignore that for a bit and help kids fleeing war. Please
Get us out of the ECHR so we can send them back to Syria in a few years when it calms down, yes. With it in force so they will stay forever and then petition for a couple of dozen other people using family reunion rules and I am less favourable.
Article 8 is getting people killed, kind of ironic for a Human Rights law.
Or create a safe camp somewhere in the Middle East - there are plenty of places which are not at war - and provide suitable aid and assistance, assuming all those rich Sheikhs and others forget their charitable obligations, so that the children and their parents are not killed. Stopping Syrian children from being killed does not require all of them to be let into Europe.
Perhaps UNCHR could come up with some ideas? Isn't that their job?
The Prime Minister rejected calls from European leaders for Britain to take “its fair share” of migrants.
Hundreds of thousands of migrants are flooding into Europe from Syria and Africa, leaving a number of countries struggling to cope.
German chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU/CSU alliance on Tuesday said that Britain's failure to accept more refugees could hurt Mr Cameron's plans to renegotiate the country's relationship with the European Union.
Quote We have taken a number of genuine asylum seekers from Syrian refugee camps and we keep that under review, but we think the most important thing is to try to bring peace and stability to that part of the world.
"I don't think there is an answer that can be achieved simply by taking more and more refugees."
Schengen has always been a crazy system and its one reason why we should not leave the EU - since if we did then any subsiquent deal might mean we end up having to join it.
Yes indeed. I remember it well when South Korea signed its Free Trade Agreement with the EU, they had to join Schengen, mind you they were less upset about it than the Mexicans.
North Korea is a European Country and member of the EEA?
Yes I agree. Its probably worth looking as well at the breakdown of migration. This does not affect the numbers but it is still worthwhile. The ONS provisional estimates for 2014, plucked at random, say 193,000 (30%) came for formal study. This is a big number from out of the whole and I guess will stay somewhat the same with a regular churn of people coming and leaving. Just 108,000 came looking for work as opposed to 178,000 with jobs. Something around 80,000 are UK citizens returning home.
I strongly suspect that the number is well low of the "real" number, so it's useful for showing a trend, but should be treated with suspicion. It won't include the probably thousands of people that successfully stow away in trucks, or break through the chunnel defenses, or are delivered into quiet harbours on moonless nights and then disappear into our black economy.
The passenger survey is based on about 5000 interviews. It must have pretty wide Confidence intervals.
I suspect its hugely damaged by a self-selecting sample. If you were coming to the UK with a questionable immigration status or without a job would you be happy filling in a questionnaire at the airport ? My concern is more the people that would never come close to such a survey because they get dropped off by a blacked out boat somewhere off the coast of Devon or Norfolk, or arrive in any number of trucks which manage to avoid being searched.
My final complaint here is that the large number of illegal economic migrants puts pressure on the government to reduce the numbers, and the government being apparently powerless to do anything about them, cracks down on the LAWFUL applications such as college students or spousal applications instead, which is a complete disgrace.
I think the survey is no better than a finger in the wind. The figures had to be revised recentlyvas they were based mostly at Heathrow and Gatwick thereby missing the dozens of flights by Ryanair et al from Eastern Europe. We really need proper counting in and out at airports etc to know the figures.
We also need a robust deportation system. Last week I was dealing with a patient who had been recorded as illegally accessing the NHS since 2009, and had not paid the bills for medical care charged as a non entitled person. My manager phoned immigration to see if they wanted to pick him up for deportation (he was an Indian national). They said no, just let him leave. So we did. There is no real attempt at enforcement, and there needs to be for any set of rules to work. Without deportation any system of numbers and visas is pointless.
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, over 7.5 million people have become displaced, of which over 4 million have fled the country. Approximately one third of a million people have been killed.
Before the conflict began the population was roughly 23 million. So roughly one third of the total population have been displaced by the conflict and one fifth of the population have fled and are now refugees.
Most of the refugees have sought sanctuary in neighbouring countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Turkey has accepted over 1.7 million refugees. Lebanon has accepted over 667k refugees (about a seventh of its total population).
This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster.
I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
Mr. K, leaving the umlaut [tricky with a UK keyboard] aside, you mean 'Fuhrerin', I think [a suffix of -in feminises a German noun. I once asked my German teacher if a brother who had a sex change would be a Bruderin, but he was unsure].
It is ironic that WWII guilt is helping drive Germany's stance, at the same time as it tries to dictate policy to the rest of the EU.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Thompson, from the last figure, that would imply annual net migration of 450,000.
Your second para is verrry interesting. It also seems accurate although hard to substantiate. The Germans probably have longer memories than us and more ingrained national traites.
Has the person who decided on the supporter charge of £3 been sacked yet?
Clearly it should have been at least £5 and probably £10 - would have made a significant difference to Labour's finances.
I am pretty sure the idea was to give MPs the option of signing up people to counteract the unions' affiliate members. I don't think anyone realised there were so many people out there who were interested. I certainly didn't.
Since the start of the civil war in Syria, over 7.5 million people have become displaced, of which over 4 million have fled the country. Approximately one third of a million people have been killed. .... This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster. I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
Douglas Carswell refuses to deny he has voted for Jeremy Corbyn Ukip's only MP has been reported by a Labour researcher for signing up to vote in the Labour Leadeship election
All pretty pathetic on Carswell's part. Shows how desperate he is to vote in a leadership election of some sort or another.
EEA does not require us to admit someone who does not have a job ... I told you this yesterday, and Mr Tyndall has told you this several times and yet you still are not listening.
Err, with all due respect, the ones who are not listening, or perhaps can't read, are yourself and Mr T. This is what the UK government thinks the free movement of people between the EEA and the EU means: an EEA national can continue to livein the UK beyond the initial 3 month period for as long as they are a qualified person, or the family member of a qualified person. Regulation 6 defines a qualified person as a jobseeker, worker, self-employed person, self-sufficient person, student https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/421242/Free_movement_rights_v12_0.pdf Here's what EFTA think: Accordingly, nationals of the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) have the same right as EU citizens to take up an economic activity anywhere in the EU/EEA without being discriminated against on the grounds of their nationality. Equally, EU citizens have the right to work and reside in the EEA EFTA States. Non-economically active persons such as pensioners, students and family members of EEA nationals are also entitled to move and reside anywhere in the EU/EEA subject to certain conditions as set out in the relevant EU legislation. http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons/persons This is what Wikipedia thinks: ...It gives EEA citizens the right of free movement and residence across the European Economic ... ... The EEA countries have had to implement this directive in full. In Norway this was implemented by changing the Alien Law (Norwegian: utlendingsloven), which entered into force on 1. Jan 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Movement_of_Citizens_Directive#Norway.2C_Iceland Here's the CBI's take: For the UK, the ‘Norway option’ would mean a continuation of the current arrangements for free movement of people ... How can we make this any easier for you? The regulations for EEA and EU countries as regards free movement are IDENTICAL. They are defined by the Free Movement of Citizens Directive 2004/38/EC. Shall I archive this post somewhere and repost it daily every time you repeat your nonsense? PS This is a summary of the EU regulation: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:l33152
Mr Nabavi - your efforts and your restraint in dealing with this are to be commended. In leaving the UK and joining the EU, an independent Scotland would still be part of free movement and in addition would have to join Schengen - this would relieve the current burden on Calais obviously. I wonder if the SNP have explained this to their electorate.
Comments
For me its not a question of numbers, but of quality. The authorities seem incapable of separating the wheat from the chaff.
"Now that Independence is no longer a realistic medium term prospect, Scots return to virtue signalling in comfort polls"
If the ref were re-run tomorrow, I would expect a very similar result to last time.
Personally I am less concerned with the actual numbers that the pandering to unlawful behaviour by accepting people who arrive in the country through improper channels and then subsequently never deporting them when they fail their asylum application. Its a huge moral hazard, and its monstrously unfair on the people who have filled out a proper application for immigration and/or asylum at one of our embassies and has to wait months for their application to be processed because immigration is overwhelmed by the illegal applications.
My final complaint here is that the large number of illegal economic migrants puts pressure on the government to reduce the numbers, and the government being apparently powerless to do anything about them, cracks down on the LAWFUL applications such as college students or spousal applications instead, which is a complete disgrace.
"By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America, with the largest numbers entering Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. More than 18,000 Jews from the German Reich were also able to find refuge in Shanghai, in Japanese-occupied China."
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005468
https://twitter.com/TonyTassell/status/638988395767832576
People coming to Europe see it as one big open continent. This may be the fault of the EU it may be the warped perceptions of the migrants. But it is not. Economic migrants, illegal travellers and asylum seekers should stay in the county they land in. It is their responsibility. Not ours. Especially as we are not part of Schengen.
Illegal immigration was not part of the point I was making however.
It is about control but I would posit that what people want, above all, is for their politicians to place at the top of the factors to take into account when determining the level and type of immigration the interests of the population here first.
Then get their agreement as to:-
(a) the numbers of people let in;
(b) the types of people let in; and
(c) how the economic benefits and costs get shared fairly.
And then - and this simply has not happened to the degree that it must - enforce those rules strictly. So if someone gets here illegally and is not someone we want, they are made to leave. No ifs, buts, endless appeals and the rest of it.
No point having rules and points and controls if they are ignored.
To my mind, none of this has happened or not to the extent that it should.
This is what the UK government thinks the free movement of people between the EEA and the EU means:
an EEA national can continue to livein the UK beyond the initial 3 month period for as long as they are a qualified person, or the family member of a qualified person. Regulation 6 defines a qualified person as a jobseeker, worker, self-employed person, self-sufficient person, student
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/421242/Free_movement_rights_v12_0.pdf
Here's what EFTA think:
Accordingly, nationals of the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) have the same right as EU citizens to take up an economic activity anywhere in the EU/EEA without being discriminated against on the grounds of their nationality. Equally, EU citizens have the right to work and reside in the EEA EFTA States. Non-economically active persons such as pensioners, students and family members of EEA nationals are also entitled to move and reside anywhere in the EU/EEA subject to certain conditions as set out in the relevant EU legislation.
http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas/persons/persons
This is what Wikipedia thinks:
The Free Movement of Citizens Directive 2004/38/EC[1][2] defines the right of free movement for citizens of the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes the member states of the European Union (EU)....It gives EEA citizens the right of free movement and residence across the European Economic Area, as long as they are not an undue burden on the country of residence and have comprehensive health insurance.[3] This right also extends to close family members that are not EEA citizens.
...
The EEA countries have had to implement this directive in full. In Norway this was implemented by changing the Alien Law (Norwegian: utlendingsloven), which entered into force on 1. Jan 2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Movement_of_Citizens_Directive#Norway.2C_Iceland
Here's the CBI's take:
For the UK, the ‘Norway option’ would mean a continuation of the current arrangements for free movement of people
http://www.cbi.org.uk/global-future/case_study06_norway.html
How can we make this any easier for you? The regulations for EEA and EU countries as regards free movement are IDENTICAL. They are defined by the Free Movement of Citizens Directive 2004/38/EC.
Shall I archive this post somewhere and repost it daily every time you repeat your nonsense?
PS This is a summary of the EU regulation:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:l33152
The problem is, Merkel isn't very good at much other than holding office. She's adopted truly bad ideas, from the left, like rent controls or phasing out nuclear power, and is now offering an open door to anybody setting foot on European shores.
Article 8 is getting people killed, kind of ironic for a Human Rights law.
Perhaps UNCHR could come up with some ideas? Isn't that their job?
We also need a robust deportation system. Last week I was dealing with a patient who had been recorded as illegally accessing the NHS since 2009, and had not paid the bills for medical care charged as a non entitled person. My manager phoned immigration to see if they wanted to pick him up for deportation (he was an Indian national). They said no, just let him leave. So we did. There is no real attempt at enforcement, and there needs to be for any set of rules to work. Without deportation any system of numbers and visas is pointless.
Before the conflict began the population was roughly 23 million. So roughly one third of the total population have been displaced by the conflict and one fifth of the population have fled and are now refugees.
Most of the refugees have sought sanctuary in neighbouring countries: Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Turkey has accepted over 1.7 million refugees. Lebanon has accepted over 667k refugees (about a seventh of its total population).
This is a huge, huge humanitarian disaster.
I get that there are real and pressing needs to do with immigration (both legal and illegal) and Europe, I really do. But can we please. please, please keep the discussion of refugees fleeing a bloody conflict at least civil and try not to conflate genuine refugees with the wider problem of economic migrants.
And we are spending money to help.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455330/DFID_Syria_Crisis_Response_Summary__2015.08.20_.pdf
£900m since 2012
I would spend more and target it at the nearby countries who are worst affected.
I note that the UN aid target is $8.4bn for 2015 so we are contributing significantly to that.
In leaving the UK and joining the EU, an independent Scotland would still be part of free movement and in addition would have to join Schengen - this would relieve the current burden on Calais obviously.
I wonder if the SNP have explained this to their electorate.
Shurely shome mishtake.