Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
"Bloody Hell" indeed...

O.o

...and I thought the US election is going to place... this is simply bizarre.

You should see the clips of angry members of the public swearing at our Prime Minister in TV debates. I don't think the USA has a direct equivalent does it, where the President can be directly challenged and held to account by members of the public and the Opposition?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
And the main reason fisherpeople have an issue is because Farage couldn't be fethed to do the job he was elected, paid and claimed expenses for...

You really think it was within Nigel Farage's power to stop 80% of the British waters' fishing quota being allocated to foreign fishermen?

Maybe.Maybe not. We'll never know, he never bothered showing up!

One could argue that he doesn't wish to legitimize the EU Parliament by actively participating in the process. He was elected on a campaign manifesto of securing Britain's withdrawal from the EU so its hardly surprising he doesn't wish to participate in a Parliament he doesn't wish his country to be a member of.

Don't the Irish Republican MP's of Northern Ireland (George Adams etc) do the same with the British Parliament, and refuse to take up their seats in the House of Commons? Do they get the same criticisms as Farage for not attending Parliament when theres a vote that affects Northern Ireland?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
And the main reason fisherpeople have an issue is because Farage couldn't be fethed to do the job he was elected, paid and claimed expenses for...

You really think it was within Nigel Farage's power to stop 80% of the British waters' fishing quota being allocated to foreign fishermen?

Maybe.Maybe not. We'll never know, he never bothered showing up!

One could argue that he doesn't wish to legitimize the EU Parliament by actively participating in the process. He was elected on a campaign manifesto of securing Britain's withdrawal from the EU so its hardly surprising he doesn't wish to participate in a Parliament he doesn't wish his country to be a member of.

Don't the Irish Republican MP's of Northern Ireland (George Adams etc) do the same with the British Parliament, and refuse to take up their seats in the House of Commons? Do they get the same criticisms as Farage for not attending Parliament when theres a vote that affects Northern Ireland?

If he didn't want to participate he shouldn't have stood for election or drawn his salary and claimed his expenses. He disenfranchised those fishermen by removing their voice from the discussion by not turning up to do the job he was elected to do, which is to represent Britain's interests.

Same is true of the Sinn Fein MPs in Northern Ireland

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Nigel Farage comments on the Thames Flotilla rally. He makes some good points - apparently the flotilla was organised by an independent Leave campaign group of fishermen, who're protesting at the 'disastrous' effect the EU has had on their industry (Nigel cites a figure that British fisherman are allocated just 20% of the fishing quotas for British waters).

And then along comes the rich millionaire Geldof to lecture the ignorant Proles and tell them how to vote...

https://www.facebook.com/nigelfarageofficial/videos/vb.133737666673845/1049309701783299/?type=2&theater¬if_t=live_video¬if_id=1466017292509170

This comment on a VICE article sum my view up quite well.

A boat full of rich toffs shoving two fingers up at struggling fisherman telling them they never had it so good.[snip]

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/understanding-nigel-farage-from-the-prow-of-a-protest-boat

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/farages-brexit-flotilla-boat-involved-in-63-million-fishing-fraud-a7083231.html

The Christina S, a 72-metre-long pelagic trawler, was one of two largest vessels to take part in the river protest organised by Scottish skippers heading to Westminster to call for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

The Christina S now owned by Peter and J Johnstone a company controlled by major fishing firm Andrew Marr International, which controls 12 per cent of all UK fishing subsidies through a series of subsidiary companies, according to Greenpeace.

The 2016 Sunday Times Rich List said Andrew Marr and his family are worth £122m - making them the 825th richest family in the UK.

hmmm ..

Looking back at yesterday's events on the Thames, I still can't believe it happened. Totally surreal

Last year at the General Election, one of the writers for The Thick of It, said the reason he gave up writing satire was that it couldn't compete with real life events like Ed Miliband's tombstones

A week ago, If somebody had told me that Bob Geldof would be clashing on the Thames with Nigel Farage, I would have called them mad.

Voted to stay in (postal vote), not heard a single, convincing argument for leaving and having a SO who is from Europe, would like her to be staying around and not having to go through the process of applying for a visa.

 Azza007 wrote:
Voted to stay in (postal vote), not heard a single, convincing argument for leaving and having a SO who is from Europe, would like her to be staying around and not having to go through the process of applying for a visa.

She could always apply for British citizenship.

Britain not being in the EU does not mean that all foreigners are cast out of the country.

There is an established pattern of increasing the UK population with immigration by the past two ruling parties. The existing foreign born population of the UK are not going to be removed. It's impractical and unnecessary.

 Azza007 wrote:
having a SO who is from Europe, would like her to be staying around and not having to go through the process of applying for a visa.

.. might be cheaper than a divorce though eh ?

 notprop wrote:
Britain not being in the EU does not mean that all foreigners are cast out of the country.

There is an established pattern of increasing the UK population with immigration by the past two ruling parties. The existing foreign born population of the UK are not going to be removed. It's impractical and unnecessary.

Apart from those not earning above £35,000 a year after 5 years, whom will be deported based on legislation that came into effect as of April this year...

But no. No foreigners being cast out at all. That would never ever happen.

We don't deport criminals who are in custody, what make you think we're going to spend the time and expense of finding and deporting otherwise law abiding people? If anything this will force Azza007 to make an honest woman of his Mrs, surely a good thing..........

£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South. Lower wage position can easily be filled by the existing unemployed already here.

 Azza007 wrote:
Voted to stay in (postal vote), not heard a single, convincing argument for leaving

Quite so. Leave have had a year to prepare, months to properly organise, and it's just been droning on about immigrants and vague promises of 'control' without outlining what form of control that might be, who would have it, so on, so on. It's a cynical campaign designed to appeal to vague revolutionary ideals. It's easy to suggest that massive change will bring about the exact change you want to see, and that's all that's happened. People are lining up to ruin the country for generations (I wonder, in the event of Brexit, if I'll live long enough to see us go cap in hand back to the table). Meanwhile various corporations, politicians and the like are maneuvering themselves into positions of receiving huge windfalls in the event of all this 'EU bureaucracy' going away.

A small group of already wealthy and influential people are going to make themselves far more so, and they've managed to convince a grassroots core of the working electorate to push for it.

 notprop wrote:


£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South.

.. uh huh.

I fething wish

 Riquende wrote:
..........A small group of already wealthy and influential people are going to make themselves far more so, and they've managed to convince a grassroots core of the working electorate to push for it.

Is that the already wealthy and influential people that are for Leave or staying In?

As a poor deluded prolle I just need you to let me know who's hoodwinking me so I know who to be outraged at?

 notprop wrote:
We don't deport criminals who are in custody, what make you think we're going to spend the time and expense of finding and deporting otherwise law abiding people? If anything this will force Azza007 to make an honest woman of his Mrs, surely a good thing..........

£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South. Lower wage position can easily be filled by the existing unemployed already here.

Ah, I forgot that people from abroad only ever live in the south. My bad I guess those in the North where wages are lower on average will just have to make do, then?

Trained Carers or Nurses. Highly-skilled, low-paid work that often falls to those from the EU that are willing to work for lower wages whilst still having the relevant qualifications. If we leave the EU then a large number will not be earning the required £35k and will likely be deported. We already have problems with the care industry and NHS due to lack of nurses and carers, this will only exacerbate the issue.

The point that people seem to be completely ignoring is that wages are not necessarily directly related to skill or use. A number of creative industries won't be earning above £35k. A lot of teachers won't be earning above £35k. I saw an article about a charity where the founder will likely be kicked out because, whilst they help a large number of people, their wages are low enough that Theresa May considers them to not contribute to the country enough.

 reds8n wrote:

 notprop wrote:


£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South.

.. uh huh.

I fething wish

I wish I was on £35K a year, heck at the moment I'd take £3.5K.

 Goliath wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Britain not being in the EU does not mean that all foreigners are cast out of the country.

There is an established pattern of increasing the UK population with immigration by the past two ruling parties. The existing foreign born population of the UK are not going to be removed. It's impractical and unnecessary.

Apart from those not earning above £35,000 a year after 5 years, whom will be deported based on legislation that came into effect as of April this year...

But no. No foreigners being cast out at all. That would never ever happen.

In all fairness, that legislation has been brought in to apply to people from outside the EU, because they're the only people our government has control over the immigration to this country of. I was chatting with a Pakistani taxi driver the other day who owns his own local cab firm, and he was telling me how dismayed he was he couldn't bring his mum over because immigration rules have become so tight for people from outside the EU as knee jerk response to high levels of immigration to the country. The gentleman in question said he and his brother had been here for 35 years, and make six figures between them.

Once we're no longer obliged to accept immigration from within the EU, we would be able to adjust immigration laws as to what best suits our needs as a nation, and fast track/exclude certain job types/compassionate grounds more efficiently. One system, and all that. It's a little false to point at a piece of legislation enacted as a knee-jerk to contemporary situations, and assume that would automatically continue to be the case ad infinitum. The entire immigration system would have to be overhauled regardless in the event of a Leave vote, so I think we can all safely assume that no piece of legislation currently in existence is necessarily a guide as to what would occur afterwards.

It's a good thing to remember: No (British) legislation is forever.

 Ketara wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Britain not being in the EU does not mean that all foreigners are cast out of the country.

There is an established pattern of increasing the UK population with immigration by the past two ruling parties. The existing foreign born population of the UK are not going to be removed. It's impractical and unnecessary.

Apart from those not earning above £35,000 a year after 5 years, whom will be deported based on legislation that came into effect as of April this year...

But no. No foreigners being cast out at all. That would never ever happen.

In all fairness, that legislation has been brought in to apply to people from outside the EU, because they're the only people our government has control over the immigration to this country of. I was chatting with a Pakistani taxi driver the other day who owns his own local cab firm, and he was telling me how dismayed he was he couldn't bring his mum over because immigration rules have become so tight for people from outside the EU as knee jerk response to high levels of immigration to the country. The gentleman in question said he and his brother had been here for 35 years, and make six figures between them.

Once we're no longer obliged to accept immigration from within the EU, we would be able to adjust immigration laws as to what best suits our needs as a nation, and fast track/exclude certain job types/compassionate grounds more efficiently. One system, and all that. It's a little false to point at a piece of legislation enacted as a knee-jerk to contemporary situations, and assume that would automatically continue to be the case ad infinitum. The entire immigration system would have to be overhauled regardless in the event of a Leave vote, so I think we can all safely assume that no piece of legislation currently in existence is necessarily a guide as to what would occur afterwards.

It's a good thing to remember: No (British) legislation is forever.

Well said:

I have a friend who is British from India decent and he now has to live in India because he married a girl from there and didn’t earn enough to be classed as being able to support her over here.

If anything I view the EU and the remainers as the 'racists' one – who want an entirely different set of rules just for the white Europeans, otherwise you should get out of the country. Outside the EU we could introduce fair immigration laws, that actually make sense.

 notprop wrote:
We don't deport criminals who are in custody, what make you think we're going to spend the time and expense of finding and deporting otherwise law abiding people? If anything this will force Azza007 to make an honest woman of his Mrs, surely a good thing..........

£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South. Lower wage position can easily be filled by the existing unemployed already here.

You mean like these folks?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-36414545

Who have been told that they don't have a job earning enough for them to stay, but they're not allowed to look for a job, but we'll just say they can stay until August. Then we'll deport them.

Yes, nobody's going to get shafted by this sort of thing at all.

Except it is not just for white europeans, it is for all europeans.

You can't blame the EU for the actions of an idiotic Tory government. Remember, this is the same Tory government which wants to immediately send foreign university graduates home after they graduate, instead of giving them time to find a job in our country so they can contribute to our economy because of course we don't want highly educated, skilled people in our workforce. Their immigration ideas are absolutely awful, they will never be fair or make any sense.

Stranger83 wrote:
If anything I view the EU and the remainers as the 'racists' one – who want an entirely different set of rules just for the white Europeans, otherwise you should get out of the country. Outside the EU we could introduce fair immigration laws, that actually make sense.

I'm sorry, what? What on earth gave you the impression that I approve of the legislation? I think using money as a definition of people's worth is fething disgusting.

Also, what is it with people saying that if only we leave the EU, all of those things that are unfair will be fixed?
"outside the EU we could do X more fairly, because the government has been very fair and balanced with all of its legislation thus far and would never place unfair restrictions on people"

 Graphite wrote:

 notprop wrote:
We don't deport criminals who are in custody, what make you think we're going to spend the time and expense of finding and deporting otherwise law abiding people? If anything this will force Azza007 to make an honest woman of his Mrs, surely a good thing..........

£35k really isn't any great sum to earn I the South. Lower wage position can easily be filled by the existing unemployed already here.

You mean like these folks?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-36414545

Who have been told that they don't have a job earning enough for them to stay, but they're not allowed to look for a job, but we'll just say they can stay until August. Then we'll deport them.

Yes, nobody's going to get shafted by this sort of thing at all.

Stop and think, would you?

Why do you think that legislation exists? Immigration from the EU is so high, and putting such a severe strain on infrastructure, services and housing, that the Government was forced to enact knee jerk legislation as Ketara puts it to cut down on immigration elsewhere. If we left the EU, we could repeal that legislation and treat everyone from all the world equally, and overall the standard criteria for remaining in this country would be relaxed.

Please explain how its fair that white Europeans get an automatic right to immigrate to Britain, whilst non-White people from the rest of the world must be subjected to such harsh controls?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except it is not just for white europeans, it is for all europeans.

You can't blame the EU for the actions of an idiotic Tory government. Remember, this is the same Tory government which wants to immediately send foreign university graduates home after they graduate, instead of giving them time to find a job in our country so they can contribute to our economy because of course we don't want highly educated, skilled people in our workforce. Their immigration ideas are absolutely awful, they will never be fair or make any sense.

What makes you think this Government will still exist in its current form after the Referendum? A Leave vote will end Cameron and Osborne.

You mean like these non-white Australians?

What the hell does this have to do with race? And what on earth makes you think that the Government actually will enact a better set of immigration controls? Knee-jerk legislation is what the UK government does, ALL THE TIME. Expecting them to come up with a measured response immediately after leaving the EU, while all the political parties are desperately infighting and trying to look tough on immigration, is... optimistic.

 Goliath wrote:

Also, what is it with people saying that if only we leave the EU, all of those things that are unfair will be fixed?
"outside the EU we could do X more fairly, because the government has been very fair and balanced with all of its legislation thus far and would never place unfair restrictions on people"

Errrr.....historical awareness and political context? The country requires immigration. This is a fact. People have been immigrating to this country since before the EU. Fact. People will immigrate to this country after we leave the EU (assuming it happens). Fact. The House of Commons can undo/alter any legislation it enacts. Fact. The current immigration laws are designed for our current system, under which European immigration levels are uncontrollable. Fact.

With these facts under our belt, it does not require a great leap of imagination to understand that should we leave the EU, our current rules will be shaken up, on account of that fact that we won't just be recruiting from the EU, but rather globally for immigrants. Whjy? Because we will have no choice to get the immigration levels we require.

I read an article from small gaming developer the other day who said that if he wanted to hire from within the EU, it required practically no effort whatsoever, but outside the EU? It was like squeezing blood from rock. So many forms and qualifications. The reason that this has become the case (historically speaking), is because immigration from outside the EU is the only immigration under the control of the government. So naturally, to try and cut down on immigration figures without pissing off Europe, those are the ones that have been targeted for the extra thumbscrew application process treatment.

If we leave the EU therefore, in order to maintain immigration at rates that are economically beneficial, the process will need to be simplified, and without European considerations, it will cease to be the political hot potato it is now. Therefore it will be an easy change to make. If one government fecks up and misses it, or only gets it half right? The next one can have a shot at it. No time limit on making new legislation after all.

Please note that this is coming from someone who regards the current immigration levels as having been a disaster to date due to the strain on public services it has caused, but is fully aware immigrants pay their way, and believes European immigration is a self-rectifying problem regardless (there are no new mass waves from new EU joinees remaining).

Basically what you guys are saying is you hate the Tories so you're voting to stay? Thats a rather shallow and short term perspective. Governments come and go. The Tories won't be in office forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Graphite wrote:
You mean like these non-white Australians?

What the hell does this have to do with race? And what on earth makes you think that the Government actually will enact a better set of immigration controls? Knee-jerk legislation is what the UK government does, ALL THE TIME. Expecting them to come up with a measured response immediately after leaving the EU, while all the political parties are desperately infighting and trying to look tough on immigration, is... optimistic.

And why is it that they're trying to look tough on immigration?

Decades of excessively high immigration from the EU has put too much strain on housing, services and infrastructure to the point that voters are taking notice and its becoming a big political issue. If we left the EU, and got immigration back under control, it wouldn't be such an issue anymore and the political agenda would move on. Parties would no longer need to look tough on immigration to avoid losing votes, and the knee jerk responses would stop (or rather, we'd get knee jerk responses to whatever the next big issue is).

 Goliath wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
If anything I view the EU and the remainers as the 'racists' one – who want an entirely different set of rules just for the white Europeans, otherwise you should get out of the country. Outside the EU we could introduce fair immigration laws, that actually make sense.

I'm sorry, what? What on earth gave you the impression that I approve of the legislation? I think using money as a definition of people's worth is fething disgusting.

Also, what is it with people saying that if only we leave the EU, all of those things that are unfair will be fixed?
"outside the EU we could do X more fairly, because the government has been very fair and balanced with all of its legislation thus far and would never place unfair restrictions on people"

I've highlighted the key word in your comment for you.

Why do we say that outside the EU we COULD get a fair immigration policy? Because outside the EU we COULD get a fair immigration policy. Whilst we are inside the EU we cannot have a fair policy as we'll always have to favour EU migrants (putting the EU first is after all the founding principle of the EU).

How do I know we'll get one? Because I believe that the majority of people in this country want a fair immigration system, which means if a party wants to get into power then they will have to offer one. This is how Democracy works, I appreciate after 40 years of ‘EU democracy’ (i.e. being dictated to by people) this might come as a shock, but in a true democracy power lies with the people.

Just in case :

Until we get any actual confirmation of what happened let's leave the horrific events concerning Jo Cox out of this alright ?

Thanks.

Stranger83 wrote:

How do I know we'll get one? Because I believe that the majority of people in this country want a fair immigration system, which means if a party wants to get into power then they will have to offer one. This is how Democracy works, I appreciate after 40 years of ‘EU democracy’ (i.e. being dictated to by people) this might come as a shock, but in a true democracy power lies with the people.

Are we really going to do the whole "real democracy!!!11!!" schtick for the umpteenth time in this thread?

If it's relevant to the point being made why not?

If the people of the UK want a fair immigration system outside the EU then the party that offers this will the election and we'll get the system. Inside the EU the party that offers this might get it to power in the UK, but as proven by Camerons 'big renegotiation deal' the EU would just turn it down.

If people insist on coming to the thread, not reading the previous pages to see whats been discussed and then insist that losing control of who creates the laws which govern your life doesn't matter, then yes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

How do I know we'll get one? Because I believe that the majority of people in this country want a fair immigration system, which means if a party wants to get into power then they will have to offer one. This is how Democracy works, I appreciate after 40 years of ‘EU democracy’ (i.e. being dictated to by people) this might come as a shock, but in a true democracy power lies with the people.

Are we really going to do the whole "real democracy!!!11!!" schtick for the umpteenth time in this thread?

You might not care about it but others do. You're free to stop reading this thread if you're not interesting in discussing it.