Brexit Penny Dropping?

[The Voice of Reason]

On 11/16/2023 at 10:23 AM, manxman1980 said:

The other bit I forgot to add yesterday..

If the UK decides to leave the ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention then they will be aligning themselves with Russia and Belarus.  Did people vote Brexit to align the UK with those two countries? 

No they voted Brexit to get sovereignty back.

And the same arguments apply to the ECHR. 

A decision to leave the ECHR wouldn’t be driven by a desire to align with Russia and Belarus.

Usual Remainer bollocks and twatiness.
 

[manxman1980]

29 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

No they voted Brexit to get sovereignty back.

And the same arguments apply to the ECHR. 

A decision to leave the ECHR wouldn’t be driven by a desire to align with Russia and Belarus.

Usual Remainer bollocks and twatiness.
 

A decision to leave the ECHR would align the UK with Russia and Belarus though.  Is that the company that the UK wants to keep?

And what is your view on clause 16 of the MoU with Rwanda?  

[The Voice of Reason]

7 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

A decision to leave the ECHR would align the UK with Russia and Belarus though.  Is that the company that the UK wants to keep?

And what is your view on clause 16 of the MoU with Rwanda?  

A decision to leave the ECHR would mean that UK law is not subjugated to another.
It’s not a case of keeping company with other countries. That’s the whole essence of sovereignty. Have you not learnt that by now ?
What Russia and Belarus do is up to them. 

I have to confess to not being familiar with clause 16 of the MoU with Rwanda and thus are unable to give you my view.  ( Unlike JW I don’t know everything about everything)

However if you would care to enlighten me I’d be more than happy to give you my considered opinion.

[manxman1980]

7 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

A decision to leave the ECHR would mean that UK law is not subjugated to another.
It’s not a case of keeping company with other countries. That’s the whole essence of sovereignty. Have you not learnt that by now ?
What Russia and Belarus do is up to them. 

I have to confess to not being familiar with clause 16 of the MoU with Rwanda and thus are unable to give you my view.  ( Unlike JW I don’t know everything about everything)

However if you would care to enlighten me I’d be more than happy to give you my considered opinion.

See below with the relevant link.  It was literally the post above the one you quoted...

On 11/15/2023 at 10:18 PM, manxman1980 said:

I assume that you have seen the announcements today from the PM?  The introduction of "emergency legislation" that will set aside domestic legislation as well as international treaties such as the ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention so that he can push through the Rwanda plan.  The Brexit rhetoric of being controlled by "foreign courts" has rose to the surface again for justifying this (despite the fact that it was a UK court which ruled the plan as illegal).

Add in that 30p Lee and a few others have basically called for the UK Government to ignore the Court ruling and proceed with the flights anyway - effectively breaking the law.  This is from the self-styled party of "law and order".

What isn't being reported in the most of the UK media or being promoted by the Government is clause 16 of the MoU which says;  “Resettlement of vulnerable Refugees: 16.1. The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.” 

No details have been shared on what a "small number" means.  I wonder why the Government isn't promoting this part of the agreement?

The number of people who would also be sent to Rwanda is relatively small and won't really have an impact on the number of "illegal" immigrants in the UK.  The whole hope of this plan, and the use of barges, is to act as a deterrent rather than to actually deal with the problem which is a lack of funding and resources to clear the backlog of asylum seekers. 

 

[The Voice of Reason]

19 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

See below with the relevant link.  It was literally the post above the one you quoted...

 

Sorry I stopped reading after the second paragraph ( 30p Lee and all that)

There doesn’t seem anything  contentious about clause 16.1 of the MoU

What concerns me ( in Brexit rhetoric as you say) is the assumption that the UK can’t enshrine human rights in its own legislation and thus has to subjugate itself  to the ECHR.

 The UK is not exactly a rogue state. Yes it’s not perfect. For example laws introduced by the Thatcher Government to take away trade union rights were unpalatable to many, including myself. But the fact that so called Spanish (!) practices remain is anathema to many others.

Hard fought for gay  rights, disability rights and a myriad of employment rights are enshrined in domestic legislation. 

Why does the UK have to subject itself to outside interference in such matters?

By all means there should be international debates and discussion about such matters which may inform legislation But why should such discussions be limited to European countries?. Let’s engage with the Americas and Asian countries, for example. Their views are no less important than our European neighbours. 

 

 

 

 

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Sorry I stopped reading after the second paragraph ( 30p Lee and all that)

Are you saying that you agree with 30p Lee?

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

There doesn’t seem anything  contentious about clause 16.1 of the MoU

Do you think that the anti-immigation people will be happy to learn that the UK Government are proposing to trade one set of immigrants for another? 

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

What concerns me ( in Brexit rhetoric as you say) is the assumption that the UK can’t enshrine human rights in its own legislation and thus has to subjugate itself  to the ECHR.

 The UK is not exactly a rogue state. Yes it’s not perfect. For example laws introduced by the Thatcher Government to take away trade union rights were unpalatable to many, including myself. But the fact that so called Spanish (!) practices remain is anathema to many others.

Hard fought for gay  rights, disability rights and a myriad of employment rights are enshrined in domestic legislation. 

Why does the UK have to subject itself to outside interference in such matters?

Remind me why the ECHR was established? 

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

By all means there should be international debates and discussion about such matters which may inform legislation But why should such discussions be limited to European countries?. Let’s engage with the Americas and Asian countries, for example. Their views are no less important than our European neighbours. 

I have no complaints about improving relationships with other countries outside the EU.

I question whether the trade deals are as good though...

[P.K.]

4 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

No they voted Brexit to get sovereignty back.

And the same arguments apply to the ECHR. 

A decision to leave the ECHR wouldn’t be driven by a desire to align with Russia and Belarus.

Usual Remainer bollocks and twatiness.
 

 

On 11/2/2023 at 5:37 PM, The Voice of Reason said:

Why are Remainers Leavers so rude, telling those who disagree with them that they are racists, uneducated and haven’t a clue.?

Whereas those people of the Leave Remain persuasion are in the main just happy to set out why they feel the way they do without resorting to insults.

Typical Leaver hypocrite...!

[TheTeapot]

SHOCK NEWS

[Non-Believer]

I see from the latest UK immigration figures released yesterday that Brexit has provenly allowed us to back control of our borders too....

[The Voice of Reason]

11 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

SHOCK NEWS

Did you read the last two paragraphs of the article?
Somewhat at odds with the headline 

[La Colombe]

 

[La Colombe]

 

[Freggyragh]

There were, no doubt, some English people who voted for 'sovereignty, unaware that every international treaty, especially trade deals, involves compromise, not just the Single Market deal. However, the main arguments the spivs and toffs used in 2016 were:

1. It would be better for the NHS.

2. The UK would control its borders better.

3. Immigration would be better controlled.

4. Trade deals would be better.

The sovereignty argument, that the English would be able to make their own laws, was always bottom of the list. This was always the   flakiest argument, but the most difficult to refute without giving detailed analysis of all the UK's international commitments. The only significant exercise of sovereignty taken so far is to allow the ruination of English waterways by the foreign owned water companies. 

So, brexit has failed to deliver on points 1, 2, 3 & 4, and although a bit of sovereignty has been exercised it is, literally, shit.

Reminder of the leave campaign: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

Now that all the bunkum about an EU superstate, Turkey joining etc., etc., has also been seen as bogus, and the huge financial hit predicted by the Yellowhammer Report is in full swing, the spivs & toffs can no longer put the blame for their failures on the EU, so they're pinning it on asylum seekers. 

Of course, asylum seekers are not exactly popular anywhere in Europe. If the EU brings in tighter restrictions and in turn fewer immigrants make it to England, who will be blamed next? 

 

 

 

 

[manxman1980]

On 11/26/2023 at 9:01 AM, La Colombe said:

 

@HeteroErectus We mentioned immigration, particularly Muslims, on the thread about the Freedom of the Press.  I suggest you watch the above video.

What it tells us is that Net Migration has increased and that the majority of that is coming via Work Visa's and Student Visa's.  Dive deeper into the data and you will realise that migration from Europe has dropped following Brexit.  These are the countries we typically share values with and to an extent religious views.  Migration from other countries have significantly increased and these are from countries where we do not have such similar cultural ties.  'Illegal' migration barely makes a ripple in these figures.

Now the Work Visa's make sense as we no longer have an easy supply of workers coming into the UK from the EU.  We also saw many EU workers leave the UK due to a combination of Brexit and Covid.  The UK is now replacing those workers with people from other nations using the visa process which often includes family members as well.

The student visas have also increased as has the opportunity to remain in the country after studying.  These visas also sometimes allow a spouse or family member to enter the UK to work (or not) as well.  The Universities in the UK rely on the fees paid by International Students so they would be reluctant to see the number of visa's issued being reduced.

It is a very interesting approach from a Government which is very anti-immigration, and that is focusing so much effort on such a tiny proportion of people who are trying to enter the UK.  These 'illegal' routes and the small boats could easily be stopped if we opened up legal routes, through UK embassies for instance, that would allow an asylum seeker to submit an application without needing to enter the country illegally.  That won't happen though because that does not make good reading for the right wing.

If there is really a plan for Islamists are entering the UK to replace the "native" population and religion then it is being supported by a Government that traditionally is to the right of centre.  They are starting to discuss measures to reduce migration, such as increasing the salary requirements, but ultimately they will do whatever businesses tell them to do.

It is also worthwhile noting that visa's have become a popular addition to trade agreements.  See the one with India for instance.

Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon are nothing but racists spreading fear and hate.

[HeteroErectus]

1 hour ago, manxman1980 said:

@HeteroErectus We mentioned immigration, particularly Muslims, on the thread about the Freedom of the Press.  I suggest you watch the above video.

What it tells us is that Net Migration has increased and that the majority of that is coming via Work Visa's and Student Visa's.  Dive deeper into the data and you will realise that migration from Europe has dropped following Brexit.  These are the countries we typically share values with and to an extent religious views.  Migration from other countries have significantly increased and these are from countries where we do not have such similar cultural ties.  'Illegal' migration barely makes a ripple in these figures.

Now the Work Visa's make sense as we no longer have an easy supply of workers coming into the UK from the EU.  We also saw many EU workers leave the UK due to a combination of Brexit and Covid.  The UK is now replacing those workers with people from other nations using the visa process which often includes family members as well.

The student visas have also increased as has the opportunity to remain in the country after studying.  These visas also sometimes allow a spouse or family member to enter the UK to work (or not) as well.  The Universities in the UK rely on the fees paid by International Students so they would be reluctant to see the number of visa's issued being reduced.

It is a very interesting approach from a Government which is very anti-immigration, and that is focusing so much effort on such a tiny proportion of people who are trying to enter the UK.  These 'illegal' routes and the small boats could easily be stopped if we opened up legal routes, through UK embassies for instance, that would allow an asylum seeker to submit an application without needing to enter the country illegally.  That won't happen though because that does not make good reading for the right wing.

If there is really a plan for Islamists are entering the UK to replace the "native" population and religion then it is being supported by a Government that traditionally is to the right of centre.  They are starting to discuss measures to reduce migration, such as increasing the salary requirements, but ultimately they will do whatever businesses tell them to do.

It is also worthwhile noting that visa's have become a popular addition to trade agreements.  See the one with India for instance.

Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon are nothing but racists spreading fear and hate.

Ok a lot to unpick here.

Firstly, I don't want these posts to seem adversarial (left vs right). Please don't see my criticism of TR's arrest and his overall treatment as a non person, as a sign of being a right winger, and rigidly so on all issues.

Controlled migration is great. The visa system works well, although IMO could be much quicker than the standard 3 months. That's what is pissing off business at the moment. 

It's a very turbulent time within the recruitment/HR world at the moment. People ask where are all the workers? Why are we short staffed in every industry? Well, partly due to the centre of the world shifting. The UK used to be the centre. Now there are other jurisdictions that attract the top people. From what I've seen professionally, UAE and specifically Dubai.

Think about how they developed their states. As it rose out of the sand, they built all this infrastructure very quickly. Airports need?? Yep, air traffic controllers. Hospitals need? Yep, doctors and nurses. You'll see from this data, they have been taking a couple of hundred thousand people out of the UK workforce for decades. 

 

You'll also see from that data (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?end=2021&locations=AE-GB&most_recent_year_desc=false&start=1969) that the levels of migration from developing countries that used to supply the UAE with workers during their early growth stage, have dropped of slightly. Use the tool on there to look at India, Bangladesh etc. 

The UK has been struggling to compete with these middle eastern countries for years. Our top brains are taken, we promote the people underneath them to fill a hole. Its essentially a vaccum effect. A problem that has been building for years. The people at the top aren't competent, there aren't enough hands on deck at the bottom. (you'll see this criticism time and time again, especially in these forums or on FB. "Too many chiefs and not enough indians", but all the chiefs are incompetent too.)

There are many legal routes into the UK and the IOM. We have to avoid being overly emotive when it comes to this issue. These people crossing the channel in boats are fleeing war (apparently). To get here, they've crossed many countries that aren't suffering war. The minimum possible amount (2) is if they cross from northwestern Morocco, they've gone through Spain (no war) and France (no war) to get here.

IF the individuals are choosing to come to the UK, they are doing so for financial reasons and the government should 100% be able to deny their entry, if those people can't contribute more to the system than they will take. I say IF, as many of these people are in fact the victims of modern human trafficking/slavery. The not very conservative Tories, and the overly emotional radical leftists unfortunately only enable this. 

In response to you questions on the conservative party being centre-right and TR etc being far-right; it depends entirely on your personal perception of where our societies aggregated "Overton Window" is. Personally, I'd say it gone drastically to the left in recent years. (see a small example below the window graphic)

 

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by HeteroErectus