|
|
Post by keithn on Nov 19, 2014 13:56:49 GMT
I have to say I see no logic at all in having a policy of restricting future migrants then taking no action against those who are here already. Because you cannot make new laws retrospectively. Those who entered the country legally, according to the law at the time, should be entitled to stay. UKIP have now acknowledged that. |
|
|
|
Post by keithn on Nov 19, 2014 14:01:49 GMT
"UKIP: EU migrants in UK legally would be able to stay" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30111694The main concern about this story is, not what Mark Reckless may or may not have said, but the ICM poll that says 25% of the population would agree with 'repatriating' (i.e. deporting) immigrants! (Presumably EU immigrants - although that is not clear). So even UKIP's policy is not going far enough with a quarter of the population. John Major talked about things being 'un-British' but maybe it is the British character that is changing and we are no longer the 'fair play, chaps' gentlemanly nation we think we are. There has always been a sizeable portion of the population that would quite happily "send the lot back". Agreed. But 25%!! One in four of the population! |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 19, 2014 14:05:55 GMT
There has always been a sizeable portion of the population that would quite happily "send the lot back". Agreed. But 25%!! One in four of the population! Sounds about right to me. |
|
|
|
Post by keithn on Nov 19, 2014 14:14:28 GMT
Agreed. But 25%!! One in four of the population! Sounds about right to me. Very worrying. I bet the BNP wished those 25% had sent votes their way. |
|
hedgehog
Non-Aligned
Enter your message here...
Posts: 6,826 
|
Post by hedgehog on Nov 19, 2014 14:24:10 GMT
Sounds about right to me. Very worrying. I bet the BNP wished those 25% had sent votes their way. A large percentage of those people wouldnt normally vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 19, 2014 14:52:38 GMT
"UKIP: EU migrants in UK legally would be able to stay" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30111694The main concern about this story is, not what Mark Reckless may or may not have said, but the ICM poll that says 25% of the population would agree with 'repatriating' (i.e. deporting) immigrants! (Presumably EU immigrants - although that is not clear). So even UKIP's policy is not going far enough with a quarter of the population. John Major talked about things being 'un-British' but maybe it is the British character that is changing and we are no longer the 'fair play, chaps' gentlemanly nation we think we are. There is no mention of this poll in the article linked to |
|
|
|
Post by keithn on Nov 19, 2014 14:55:57 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 16:16:25 GMT
I have to say I see no logic at all in having a policy of restricting future migrants then taking no action against those who are here already. Read the subtext. Restricting working class migrants, totally new class based policy. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 19, 2014 16:22:53 GMT
But if the concern is that workers here are being exploited by the use of low wages by employers in the knowledge that they will get the money bumped up by tax credits and other in-work benefits, is it reasonable that the idea of free movement of labour should be subsidised by government to enable the payment of low wages?
If one of the reasons employers take on foreign staff is their belief that they can pay low wages given the availability of tax credits, then this doesn't appear to be a good use of public money.
I've never been convinced by subsidising profit making concerns to pay people badly as a policy, and if its being used deliberately to favour employing workers they think will be cheaper still, then I can see the point.
Personally I would have liked to see moves towards a living wage announced alongside this change
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Nov 19, 2014 16:42:38 GMT
That wasn't the aim, but it's what it has ended up as.
When I left school, I went to work for the Inland Revenue, and joined the tax credit compliance team based in Plymouth. At a meeting, I said it would be come 'a new Speenhamland' only to be told by a fast streamer present that I was wrong. This was October 2000 and within two years he acknowledged I was right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 19, 2014 16:54:32 GMT
Sounds about right to me. Very worrying. I bet the BNP wished those 25% had sent votes their way. The BNP were clearly extremists, though. UKIP already had elected officials and MEPs for a decade before everyone decided to claim they were dangerous new extremists despite this patently not being the case. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 19, 2014 18:40:10 GMT
I have to say I see no logic at all in having a policy of restricting future migrants then taking no action against those who are here already. Because you cannot make new laws retrospectively. Those who entered the country legally, according to the law at the time, should be entitled to stay. UKIP have now acknowledged that. Why does 'entered legally' mean they can stay forever. They are not British.......just here because of our unfortunate membership of the bloody EU. Exit EU and their 'right' ceases too. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 19, 2014 18:41:40 GMT
There has always been a sizeable portion of the population that would quite happily "send the lot back". Agreed. But 25%!! One in four of the population! I am suprised it is not a good deal larger. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,441
|
Post by iain on Nov 19, 2014 18:43:25 GMT
Because you cannot make new laws retrospectively. Those who entered the country legally, according to the law at the time, should be entitled to stay. UKIP have now acknowledged that. Why does 'entered legally' mean they can stay forever. They are not British.......just here because of our unfortunate membership of the bloody EU. Exit EU and their 'right' ceases too. So, if Scotland had voted for independence, you think they should have been able to turn around and kick out all English people? |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 19, 2014 18:52:35 GMT
Because you cannot make new laws retrospectively. Those who entered the country legally, according to the law at the time, should be entitled to stay. UKIP have now acknowledged that. Why does 'entered legally' mean they can stay forever. They are not British.......just here because of our unfortunate membership of the bloody EU. Exit EU and their 'right' ceases too. So if your party achieves its goal of the UK leaving the EU, you think that we should expel all existing EU migrants (the vast majority of whom are gainfully employed and contributing to our economy)? Or am I misreading your opinion? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 19:03:31 GMT
Why does 'entered legally' mean they can stay forever. They are not British.......just here because of our unfortunate membership of the bloody EU. Exit EU and their 'right' ceases too. So if your party achieves its goal of the UK leaving the EU, you think that we should expel all existing EU migrants (the vast majority of whom are gainfully employed and contributing to our economy)? Or am I misreading your opinion? I think Carlton may have opened the blinds on his world a little too widely there. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 19, 2014 19:10:58 GMT
Why does 'entered legally' mean they can stay forever. They are not British.......just here because of our unfortunate membership of the bloody EU. Exit EU and their 'right' ceases too. So, if Scotland had voted for independence, you think they should have been able to turn around and kick out all English people? That is so shrill 5th Form........"So you think that....na-na, na na-na...". No, of course I don't for a raft of obvious reasons:- 1) The 'English' people resident in Scotland had a vote in the Referendum and if there had been a Yes vote one assumes they could have become Scots or of dual nationality. 2) I don't think Scotland would have wanted to do that. 3) They did have a right to exercise that power if independent and as a sovereign power they wanted to do it. 4) I have a view as a present resident in Scotland with Scottish and English ancestry. 5) Many members of my family have lived abroad and none were expelled because they were not deemed to be a problem. 6) Problems arise with persons who are assets light and have no income.........and they come with numbers. a) 1000 Polish plumbers are very good news. b) 90000 Somalis with no assets and no jobs are very bad news. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,441
|
Post by iain on Nov 19, 2014 19:22:22 GMT
1) There is every possibility that EU residents would have the right to vote in an in-out referendum
2) Irrelevant
3) Obviously they have the technical right, but should they use it?
4) Great
5) Super
6) As I am sure you will realise, Somalia is not a member of the EU, so, once again, this is filed under 'irrelevant'
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 19, 2014 19:22:42 GMT
Why does 'entered legally' mean they can stay forever. They are not British.......just here because of our unfortunate membership of the bloody EU. Exit EU and their 'right' ceases too. So if your party achieves its goal of the UK leaving the EU, you think that we should expel all existing EU migrants (the vast majority of whom are gainfully employed and contributing to our economy)? Or am I misreading your opinion? You are being confused........easy to do in superheated discussions. My sole point is that what I regard as guest workers should never to regarded as new British citizens and permanent residents with rights to bring in their entire extended families. The deal should be along the lines of 'You look to be a decent sort with skills we actually want AT PRESENT. Please come and work and if you like us and we like you we might offer you citizenship, all our benefits and certain closely defined rights to import a limited number of family members, when we decide to do so. If you become unemployed, disruptive or a cost to us we shall ask you to go. If economics change and we have a lot of citizens unemployed we may also ask you to go.' Its all our call. Outside the EU rules, there are no rights to come or to stay. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 19, 2014 19:28:21 GMT
That wasn't the aim, but it's what it has ended up as. When I left school, I went to work for the Inland Revenue, and joined the tax credit compliance team based in Plymouth. At a meeting, I said it would be come 'a new Speenhamland' only to be told by a fast streamer present that I was wrong. This was October 2000 and within two years he acknowledged I was right. It was well intentioned but I am not in favour of it as a way of boosting low income. Too many employers use it as a reason to suppress wages |
|
