politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Concern about immigration drops sharply although nearly 3 time

williamglenn said:

isam said:

nichomar said:

isam said:

MattW said:

another_richard said:

AnneJGP said:

NickPalmer said:

Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.

The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.

Perhaps the saddest thing of all is that the feeling of having been turned into a stranger in one's own country only matters when it's expressed from one side of a multi-faceted issue.

You should feel enriched about the vibrant new Britain of suburban shanty towns, Jew hatred, industrial scale racist child rape, female genital mutilation, human trafficking and slavery.

So Rotherham grooming (from the early 1990s onwards), FGM (for at least a generation), Human Trafficking (ditto), Jew hatred (SWP / Nazis / National Front) etc etc were all caused by Brexit.

Dr Who Lives !

Or perhaps Brexit will help us recover from these things that happened on the EU watch.

Or perhaps someone is blowing smoke.

These things have happened in a large way because of mass immigration. The public never wanted it, the politicians never listened to them, then we had a referendum which was a proxy for immigration control, and a chance to slap the political elite in the face...

But it wasn't EU migration it was migration the government could have controlled, so who did they slap in the face?

Successive governments allowed immigration, both EU and non EU, to increase beyond all known records, while promising to be tough on it. The public always want less immigration said the polls, but no matter who was in charge, they increased it. UKIP went from 3% to 13% once they majored on immigration, despite being a one man band. Then we had a chance to slap the bosses in the face...

If Ken Clarke had been leader in 1997, a lot of things would have been different.

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

welshowl said:

NickPalmer said:

Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.

The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.

Got to be stronger than that I feel. I want it under the total control of a govt I can elect and fire. I feel people would be more comfortable about numbers, even not inconsiderable ones (and yes of course we will need immigrants), if they feel they are getting a say. At present we have signed away all control on 440m. If you don't control your borders, you are not a proper country, nor can your realistically plan for the future as a state for the benefit of your citizens if you only have a pretty inaccurate idea of how many will be here and where in five and ten years time.

It's a continuum even for "free movement", though isn't it?

Free movement for those with certain qualifications, no criminal records, no possibility of benefits, and a job offer paying more than x

Through to

Free movement and free benefits for anyone from anywhere.

There's probably about 10% of the population, and perhaps 15% among opinion formers, who do actually believe in the latter.

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

isam said:

nichomar said:

isam said:

MattW said:

another_richard said:

AnneJGP said:

NickPalmer said:

Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.

The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.

Perhaps the saddest thing of all is that the feeling of having been turned into a stranger in one's own country only matters when it's expressed from one side of a multi-faceted issue.

You should feel enriched about the vibrant new Britain of suburban shanty towns, Jew hatred, industrial scale racist child rape, female genital mutilation, human trafficking and slavery.

So Rotherham grooming (from the early 1990s onwards), FGM (for at least a generation), Human Trafficking (ditto), Jew hatred (SWP / Nazis / National Front) etc etc were all caused by Brexit.

Dr Who Lives !

Or perhaps Brexit will help us recover from these things that happened on the EU watch.

Or perhaps someone is blowing smoke.

These things have happened in a large way because of mass immigration. The public never wanted it, the politicians never listened to them, then we had a referendum which was a proxy for immigration control, and a chance to slap the political elite in the face...

But it wasn't EU migration it was migration the government could have controlled, so who did they slap in the face?

Successive governments allowed immigration, both EU and non EU, to increase beyond all known records, while promising to be tough on it. The public always want less immigration said the polls, but no matter who was in charge, they increased it. UKIP went from 3% to 13% once they majored on immigration, despite being a one man band. Then we had a chance to slap the bosses in the face...

If Ken Clarke had been leader in 1997, a lot of things would have been different.

Surely. We'd be in the Euro and Schengen, and have an EZ wide fiscal policy.

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

NickPalmer said:

Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.

The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.

Wasn't limiting early access to benefits part of Cameron's grand *ahem* renegotiation?

Yes. Except he didn't actually get that. He got the possibility that, if all the other EU governments agreed, then he could temporarily suspend early access to benefits.

There have always been any number of ways we could reform the benefits system in full compliance with EU law as long as it was non-discriminatory.

It is however, reasonable to discriminate between British Nationals and non-nationals.

What about Irish nationals?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/13/irish-wont-be-affected-benefits-curbs-eu-migrants

GeoffM said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

NickPalmer said:

Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.

The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.

Wasn't limiting early access to benefits part of Cameron's grand *ahem* renegotiation?

Yes. Except he didn't actually get that. He got the possibility that, if all the other EU governments agreed, then he could temporarily suspend early access to benefits.

There have always been any number of ways we could reform the benefits system in full compliance with EU law as long as it was non-discriminatory.

Why would we want it to be non-discriminatory?

That'd be the whole desired point.

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour council employs one in ten staff on zero hours contracts despite Jeremy Corbyn's vow to ban them

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/labour-council-employs-one-ten-staff-zero-hours-contracts-despite/

Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.

The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.

I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.

Sean_F said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

welshowl said:

NickPalmer said:

Although Brexit was seen by many commentators as being mostly about immigration (and for many perhaps it was), it also seems to have had a detoxifying effect - people who used to worry a lot about the issue now feel vaguely that something is being done.

The zealots who really disliked foreigners were always a small minority - most people who were and to some extent still are concerned mainly felt it was out of control rather than terrible per se, and I reckon most would be up for some sort of fudge on freedom of movement - something more about limiting early access to benefits, say.

Got to be stronger than that I feel. I want it under the total control of a govt I can elect and fire. I feel people would be more comfortable about numbers, even not inconsiderable ones (and yes of course we will need immigrants), if they feel they are getting a say. At present we have signed away all control on 440m. If you don't control your borders, you are not a proper country, nor can your realistically plan for the future as a state for the benefit of your citizens if you only have a pretty inaccurate idea of how many will be here and where in five and ten years time.

It's a continuum even for "free movement", though isn't it?

Free movement for those with certain qualifications, no criminal records, no possibility of benefits, and a job offer paying more than x

Through to

Free movement and free benefits for anyone from anywhere.

There's probably about 10% of the population, and perhaps 15% among opinion formers, who do actually believe in the latter.

Drop the benefits and I'll say yes to the latter.

Free movement and free benefits are an impossible combination.

I think Robert would advocate a clean record, and a job offer, plus no benefits till you'd paid tax for five years, and you paid for any public services you used during that five year period.

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour council employs one in ten staff on zero hours contracts despite Jeremy Corbyn's vow to ban them

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/labour-council-employs-one-ten-staff-zero-hours-contracts-despite/

Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.

The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.

I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.

Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.

FrancisUrquhart said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour council employs one in ten staff on zero hours contracts despite Jeremy Corbyn's vow to ban them

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/labour-council-employs-one-ten-staff-zero-hours-contracts-despite/

Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.

The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.

I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.

We also know a significant percentage of zero hours contracts are top rate tax payers. I wonder how many council workers are?

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/900097234058051585

FrancisUrquhart said:

Young people deemed to be at risk of getting caught up in crime and disorder during the Notting Hill carnival this weekend are being removed from the area and invited to a watersports weekend at a cost of more than £1,000 each, the Guardian has learned.

More than £1k EACH...You could put them up in the Ritz for the weekend for that!

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour council employs one in ten staff on zero hours contracts despite Jeremy Corbyn's vow to ban them

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/labour-council-employs-one-ten-staff-zero-hours-contracts-despite/

Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.

The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.

I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.

Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.

But that's the thing. For a second earner, adding something to the family pot but with possible childcare or carer responsibilities, they can be very very useful.

But if they're banned, that goes too.

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour council employs one in ten staff on zero hours contracts despite Jeremy Corbyn's vow to ban them

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/labour-council-employs-one-ten-staff-zero-hours-contracts-despite/

Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.

The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.

I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.

Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.

Not everyone is a principle earner though.

A great many people are unprincipled earners...

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour council employs one in ten staff on zero hours contracts despite Jeremy Corbyn's vow to ban them

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/labour-council-employs-one-ten-staff-zero-hours-contracts-despite/

Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.

The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.

I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.

Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.

But that's the thing. For a second earner, adding something to the family pot but with possible childcare or carer responsibilities, they can be very very useful.

But if they're banned, that goes too.

Yeah, she works that way by choice, turning down a permanent contract.

The unpredictability of the work would be a nightmare for others though. Ofen she gets missed by the bank office and then gets a months pay in a week.

How to control exploitation while maintaining flexibility? Perhaps only permitting them where a Union representative in the workplace agrees would be a good start.

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour council employs one in ten staff on zero hours contracts despite Jeremy Corbyn's vow to ban them

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/labour-council-employs-one-ten-staff-zero-hours-contracts-despite/

Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.

The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.

I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.

Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.

Not everyone is a principle earner though.

A great many people are unprincipled earners...

nigel4england said:

williamglenn said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/900097234058051585

Brexit is turning out to be Dave's deal redux. We can't really extricate ourselves from the EU; all we can do is plead for special privileges.

I take it you haven't read this:

https://order-order.com/2017/08/22/remain-media-coverage-criticised-experts/

TheScreamingEagles said:

This made me chuckle, from The Telegraph, no less.

Ishmael_Z said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour council employs one in ten staff on zero hours contracts despite Jeremy Corbyn's vow to ban them

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/labour-council-employs-one-ten-staff-zero-hours-contracts-despite/

Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.

The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.

I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.

Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.

Not everyone is a principle earner though.

A great many people are unprincipled earners...

They are indeed (I corrected my misused homonym!)

Homophone.

And if that autocorrects itself things will get very confusing.

williamglenn said:

nigel4england said:

williamglenn said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/900097234058051585

Brexit is turning out to be Dave's deal redux. We can't really extricate ourselves from the EU; all we can do is plead for special privileges.

I take it you haven't read this:

https://order-order.com/2017/08/22/remain-media-coverage-criticised-experts/

TheScreamingEagles said:

This made me chuckle, from The Telegraph, no less.

So it turns out that the 'Remoaner' journalists were correct and Paul Staines was wrong.

Ishmael_Z said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Labour council employs one in ten staff on zero hours contracts despite Jeremy Corbyn's vow to ban them

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/22/labour-council-employs-one-ten-staff-zero-hours-contracts-despite/

Problem is - and this is something Corbyn wouldn't know - is that handled in the right way zero hours contracts have distinct advantages. It allows flexibility to employers and workers that simply isn't available in other ways. For parents with young children, it can be very, very useful if a child falls ill, for example. It also allows for short term temporary employment that is a valuable way into the job market. I used it myself for my first three jobs - and none would have worked on a contract that mandated my hours.

The problem - and here I agree with Corbyn and Miliband - is they can be ruthlessly exploited by bosses without morals or sense (and we can all name some of those) to overwork and underpay their workers and keep them on a string. Which is not on.

I confess I have no idea how we square that circle but banning it strikes me as a blunt instrument.

Mrs Fox works a ZHC. It works well for her as there is my salary to smooth the gaps, but no way would it work for a principle earner.

Not everyone is a principle earner though.

A great many people are unprincipled earners...

They are indeed (I corrected my misused homonym!)

Homophone.

And if that autocorrects itself things will get very confusing.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Migrants clash in mass brawls around Calais
http://news.sky.com/story/migrants-clash-in-mass-brawls-around-calais-11000900

isam said:

You forgot The Times front page lads

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/900107494327975938

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

You forgot The Times front page lads

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/900107494327975938

That's laughable.

So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

You forgot The Times front page lads

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/900107494327975938

That's laughable.

So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

You forgot The Times front page lads

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/900107494327975938

That's laughable.

So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.

Precisely.

The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.

Read the Times front page

Sean_F said:

My preference would be to treat Ireland as a foreign country, whose citizens have no special rights. But, obviously, that would cause a huge storm, so we'll have to stick to the status quo.

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

isam said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

You forgot The Times front page lads

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/900107494327975938

That's laughable.

So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.

Precisely.

The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.

Read the Times front page

I don't see anything in the Times front page about 500,000 fighters. Is it in the small print?

The 500,000 figure was what Isis threatened in 2015. I'm sorry I linked to the Times front page via Farage as it gave people the free hit, but it was the front page I meant to be the important part.

At least at gave an opportunity for people to feel good about themselves

Indeed that's the problem with Farage, he takes a reasonable idea and amplifies it to the point it's absurd at which point people can shoot the messenger rather than the message.

GIN1138 said:

So rather than a "common market" we really did join Hotel California in the 70's?

williamglenn said:

nigel4england said:

williamglenn said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/900097234058051585

Brexit is turning out to be Dave's deal redux. We can't really extricate ourselves from the EU; all we can do is plead for special privileges.

I take it you haven't read this:

https://order-order.com/2017/08/22/remain-media-coverage-criticised-experts/

TheScreamingEagles said:

This made me chuckle, from The Telegraph, no less.

So it turns out that the 'Remoaner' journalists were correct and Paul Staines was wrong.

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

You forgot The Times front page lads

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/900107494327975938

That's laughable.

So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.

Precisely.

The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

You forgot The Times front page lads

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/900107494327975938

That's laughable.

So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.

Precisely.

The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.

Absolutely right.

Still: I can't help feel that - if I were running ISIS - disguising a few hundred fighters as refugees and trying to smuggle them into the EU seems like quite a lot of effort, for pretty uncertain rewards.

On the other hand, trying to persuade the West that I was doing that seems a no brainer.

Scott_P said:

twitter.com/scotnational/status/900098537324728320

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

You forgot The Times front page lads

https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/900107494327975938

That's laughable.

So, ISIS has 500,000 fighters (against the CIA estimate of 25-30,000). And ISIS is able to spare these fighters from the war in Iraq to disguise themselves as refugees. Which are then going to (all 500,000 of them) slip their way over 1,000 miles to the Aegean coastline. Where they will put themselves on boats. That - in the likeliest scenario - end up on a Greek island. With said fighters now in a refugee camp without any weapons two thousand miles from Paris.

Precisely.

The funny thing is that if Farage wasn't so attracted to hyperbolic nonsense that can clearly be ridiculed he could have dropped three zeros off that figure and still had a rather frightening but a lot harder to dismiss figure.

Absolutely right.

Still: I can't help feel that - if I were running ISIS - disguising a few hundred fighters as refugees and trying to smuggle them into the EU seems like quite a lot of effort, for pretty uncertain rewards.

On the other hand, trying to persuade the West that I was doing that seems a no brainer.

If you were Putin, trying to persuade the West that ISIS was doing that would also be a no brainer too.

Whose side is Farage on?