P.K. Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 19 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: They are not my soulmates at all. I find their position on immigration utterly reprehensible. @The Voice of Reason Well according to Farage on the stump the 2024 vote "should be the immigration election" because he knew full well that despite the likes of you and woolley banging on and on about the "importance" of the much hackneyed "sovereignty" it was far and away "immigration" that dumped the UK out of the EU. So Farage naturally views it as a vote winner. So I'm interested to know what part of their "position" on immigration does a brexiteer like youself find "utterly reprehensible" and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 10 hours ago, P.K. said: @The Voice of Reason Well according to Farage on the stump the 2024 vote "should be the immigration election" because he knew full well that despite the likes of you and woolley banging on and on about the "importance" of the much hackneyed "sovereignty" it was far and away "immigration" that dumped the UK out of the EU. So Farage naturally views it as a vote winner. So I'm interested to know what part of their "position" on immigration does a brexiteer like youself find "utterly reprehensible" and why? I’ll let the BBC tell you:- Freeze on 'non-essential' immigration Daniel Sandford Home affairs correspondent @BBCDanielS Two of Reform UK’s core five pledges are to do with migration. The party says it would freeze non-essential immigration, but concedes there would be exceptions with work in healthcare considered essential. It plans to ban students from bringing partners and children to the UK and employers would have to pay 20% National Insurance on foreign workers (compared to 13.8% for British citizens), though there would be exceptions for the health and social care sector and very small businesses. On the thorny issue of small boats smuggling migrants across the Channel, the party says it would “pick up illegal migrants out of boats and take them back to France”. But it does not explain how it would persuade France to accept that. It says "zero illegal migrants" would be resettled in the UK. Asylum seekers arriving illegally would be processed rapidly and "offshore" if necessary. Those rejected would be "returned". These are quite aspirational policies as some would be very hard to implement. Successive administrations have found it very difficult to find places to send failed asylum seekers to and negotiations with France have often got bogged down quickly. A promise to deport foreign prisoners "immediately" after their release is already government policy, but has proved hard to implement with countries that are reluctant to help. These policies all apply to the UK as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 I know all that. I asked which part of it, as a brexiteer, you find "utterly reprehensible" and why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 3 minutes ago, P.K. said: I know all that. I asked which part of it, as a brexiteer, you find "utterly reprehensible" and why? Those parts. I believe the Reform party’s definition of “ non essential immigration “ would be too strict and the freezing thereof would negatively impact the economy. It would also prevent those who could make a positive contribution, coming to the UK blighting their lives in the process. And the NI premium payable in respect of foreign workers disadvantages them and lead to those less suitable being employed instead. I think it is inherently unfair. You say you ask me all this as a “brexiteer”. Why not just as a normal voter? ( if I had such a vote). It’s not necessary to view everything through the prism of Brexit. It’s true I would have voted for Brexit but that’s not how I define myself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 I think you're struggling here: "It would also prevent those who could make a positive contribution coming to the UK blighting their lives in the process." If not getting into the UK is "blighting their lives" surely that means they're "economic" migrants...? Farage is undoutedly a nasty, self-centred individual but he's not stupid. He got elected in Clacton which was clearly not a random choice for him. Douglas Carswell their tory MP defected to UKIP in 2014. Clearly he realised what mattered to his constituents. In the referendum 70% voted to Leave. Apparently the folks in Clacton actually believe that it taking two weeks to get a doctors appointment, spending years on an NHS waiting list for surgery, poor public services etc is all down to "immigrants". Health issues are important to Clacton because it's a retiree haven. Unfortunately they don't seem to understand that without "immigrants" the NHS and Social Care services would probably stop functioning... Which is why Reform UK pander to their prejudices with their immigration "policies" even though ultimately it is not in the electorates best interests. Just like Brexit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 48 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: You say you ask me all this as a “brexiteer”. Why not just as a normal voter? ( if I had such a vote). It’s not necessary to view everything through the prism of Brexit. It’s true I would have voted for Brexit but that’s not how I define myself! Because the schism that Brexit caused and the ramifications of which are going to be felt for generations. You are to blame for the outcomes, and should be labelled as such. Sorry if that seems harsh, but because of your decision, I have had rights and privileges that have existed since before I was born removed and will likely never get them back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 38 minutes ago, P.K. said: I think you're struggling here: "It would also prevent those who could make a positive contribution coming to the UK blighting their lives in the process." If not getting into the UK is "blighting their lives" surely that means they're "economic" migrants...? Farage is undoutedly a nasty, self-centred individual but he's not stupid. He got elected in Clacton which was clearly not a random choice for him. Douglas Carswell their tory MP defected to UKIP in 2014. Clearly he realised what mattered to his constituents. In the referendum 70% voted to Leave. Apparently the folks in Clacton actually believe that it taking two weeks to get a doctors appointment, spending years on an NHS waiting list for surgery, poor public services etc is all down to "immigrants". Health issues are important to Clacton because it's a retiree haven. Unfortunately they don't seem to understand that without "immigrants" the NHS and Social Care services would probably stop functioning... Which is why Reform UK pander to their prejudices with their immigration "policies" even though ultimately it is not in the electorates best interests. Just like Brexit... Like I said earlier Reform UK are not my cup of tea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 37 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said: Because the schism that Brexit caused and the ramifications of which are going to be felt for generations. You are to blame for the outcomes, and should be labelled as such. Sorry if that seems harsh, but because of your decision, I have had rights and privileges that have existed since before I was born removed and will likely never get them back. It’s not all about you and your privileges though is it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 6 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: Like I said earlier Reform UK are not my cup of tea. Maybe not, but you managed to force it down. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 14 hours ago, woolley said: I didn't miss it at all. First of all, Scotland is over-represented in the Westminster Parliament to begin with. Secondly, Scottish voters did not need to vote Labour to punish the Tories because the certainty of a Labour landslide has been patently obvious for over a year based on votes from England alone. It's a red herring. If Scots were minded to vote nationalist they would have done so. They didn't. Unionist parties won 48 Scottish seats to the Nats 9 - hardly a platform to justify all of their noise. There was a vote as recently as 2014, and the SNP didn't think the EU was an issue then. Independence was far more important to them than EU membership, but now, for their own convenience, EU membership is suddenly everything apparently. They are opportunists. You cannot expect the UK government to tolerate a constant state of "neverendum" flux because (EU style) the SNP want to keep holding votes every few years until the electorate get the right answer. After the Supreme Court ruling in 2022, Sturgeon spoke words to the effect that the next UK election would be a de facto referendum on independence. If that is the case, she lost big time. I stand by my original point. There is an assembly in Edinburgh around which views coalesce. If that power base demanded independence over a sustained period, and by that I mean maybe a generation, as was conceded as reasonable even by Salmond after the 2014 Indyref, then I am sure it would not be denied because the stance would become untenable. For my own part, if there is the groundswell at that time I would mandate their vote on that schedule, say 2030, and see what comes out of it. The next elections for MSPs will be very interesting. So you are back to the "once in a generation" cop out whilst ignoring that a major factor in the decision making process for many was EU membership. This could easily be put to bed by saying to Scotland, "hey, do you know what? There has been a seismic change since the referendum in 2014 and we understand that continued EU membership was important to those who voted. We can see that EU membership was also important to Scottish voters in the Brexit referendum. You can therefore hold another referendum but there cannot be another one for 20 years." You and @The Voice of Reason are confident that Scottish voters would continue to choose membership of the UK so what is to be afraid off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, manxman1980 said: So you are back to the "once in a generation" cop out whilst ignoring that a major factor in the decision making process for many was EU membership. This could easily be put to bed by saying to Scotland, "hey, do you know what? There has been a seismic change since the referendum in 2014 and we understand that continued EU membership was important to those who voted. We can see that EU membership was also important to Scottish voters in the Brexit referendum. You can therefore hold another referendum but there cannot be another one for 20 years." You and @The Voice of Reason are confident that Scottish voters would continue to choose membership of the UK so what is to be afraid off? Just speaking for myself I’m not afraid of anything. Yes let the Scots decide for themselves. As it happens I, together with the overwhelming majority of pollsters and commentators am confident that a vote held today would result in Scotland remaining in the UK. However if the result was in favour of leaving the UK, then fine. The rest of the UK is not dependent on Scotland. The issue, as you have identified, is the frequency of such referendums. You are back to the “EU membership” cop out in that the Scots didn't apparently realise that the UK could at any time leave the EU. This was always a possibility during the what , 40 years ? of membership and that possibility also existed during the pre and post independence referendum periods. The Indyref was to be a once in a generation event, as even agreed by Alex Salmond. You can’t hide behind the Brexit vote as an excuse to hold another referendum so soon, because it didn’t produce the result that some wanted. To have another referendum so soon after the last one would make a mockery of , and destroy the credibility and integrity of the whole process. Edited July 18 by The Voice of Reason Slight adjustment to last para Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 15 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: To have another referendum so soon after the last one would make a mockery of , and destroy the credibility and integrity of the whole process. Oh you are so close to a realisation there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted July 18 Share Posted July 18 Anyone else finding it heartening to see Keir Starmer starting to repair the damage in relations with the EU caused by the ill considered Brexit project and it's main protagonists? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 20 hours ago, La Colombe said: Anyone else finding it heartening to see Keir Starmer starting to repair the damage in relations with the EU caused by the ill considered Brexit project and it's main protagonists? It is indeed heartening to see Keir Starmer engaging in dialogue with our European neighbours to explore areas where both they and the UK can benefit from mutual cooperation, without the UK ceding sovereignty and having to be part of a supranational organisation. Maybe with a new government installed in the UK the EU have reconsidered their relationship with Westminster and realized that cooperation is far more constructive than holding a grudge. Whatever, let’s hope that we can go forward in a spirit of goodwill. What is not so heartening is the commitment from Starmer that the UK will never leave the ECHR. Ignoring the idea that one should “never say never” It is disappointing that the incoming Labour administration does not trust itself to create and implement policies which guarantee human rights within the UK . To outsource such an important responsibility seems shameful to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 3 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said: It is indeed heartening to see Keir Starmer engaging in dialogue with our European neighbours to explore areas where both they and the UK can benefit from mutual cooperation, without the UK ceding sovereignty and having to be part of a supranational organisation. Yeah, I think you'll find we'll probably end up ceding a little bit. It will be in our interests to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.