The EU: IN or OUT?

masonic

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The EU has the ultimate say and therefore responsibility.

Well it does for a little under half of it. Even if we were able to eliminate all migration from the EU (which obviously won't happen), net migration would still be an order of magnitude above target, so it does make me wonder who thought setting that target was realistic.

savings_my_hobby

masonic wrote: »

Well it does for a little under half of it. Even if we were able to eliminate all migration from the EU (which obviously won't happen), net migration would still be an order of magnitude above target, so it does make me wonder who thought setting that target was realistic.

EU migration was catching up on non Eu migration fast, in the last 25 years Non EU was by far and away the our biggest import but noones know what the next 25 years would have been like in this respect had we have stayed.

Net migration would not have to be high if they enforced the borders, there is no reason why non EU migration could not be cut immediately in theory.

They could introduce an Australian points system just for non EU migrants then include EU migrants into the system when we finally leave. Then we could have 99,999 of the very best from anywhere in the world and the government could still reach their target by the end of parliament.

I don't think the target was made of economic reasons, more like a social and political reasoning.

masonic

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

EU migration was catching up on non Eu migration fast, in the last 25 years Non EU was by far and away the our biggest import but noones know what the next 25 years would have been like in this respect had we have stayed.

Net migration would not have to be high if they enforced the borders, there is no reason why non EU migration could not be cut immediately in theory.

They could introduce an Australian points system just for non EU migrants then include EU migrants into the system when we finally leave. Then we could have 99,999 of the very best from anywhere in the world and the government could still reach their target by the end of parliament.

I don't think the target was made of economic reasons, more like a social and political reasoning.

There's no reason why non EU migration could not have been cut already. It has been well over 5 years since the promise was made in the Home Secretary's speech of November 2010.
"We will reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. It will not be easy. It will take hard work and a great deal of political courage. But the British people want us to do it and it is the right thing to do. So we will do it."

So, after 5 and a half years of hard work and political courage, we've managed to reduce non-EU net migration from just over 200,000 to a little under 190,000. I think "the British people [who] want [them] to do it" were sort of hoping it would be achieved in their lifetime. :rotfl:

masonic

savings_my_hobby wrote: »

I was backing may to succeed Cameron before all of that, although I still think she is the best person out of the two to lead us into Brexit.

It now seems she will be the one to do it. I must say, after all of the duplicity, backstabbing and dirty tricks of the referendum campaigns, it is particularly refreshing to see a politician doing the decent thing and stepping aside for the good of the country.

BananaRepublic

masonic wrote: »

It now seems she will be the one to do it. I must say, after all of the duplicity, backstabbing and dirty tricks of the referendum campaigns, it is particularly refreshing to see a politician doing the decent thing and stepping aside for the good of the country.

I was under the impression that she stepped aside because she could not cope with the dirty campaign against her i.e. attacking her for some slightly careless remarks about May having no children, and attacks on her CV. It was not pleasant. That said, she is inexperienced.

masonic

BananaRepublic wrote: »

I was under the impression that she stepped aside because she could not cope with the dirty campaign against her i.e. attacking her for some slightly careless remarks about May having no children, and attacks on her CV. It was not pleasant. That said, she is inexperienced.

That's certainly what some journalists have speculated. In any case, it was the right thing for her to do. Perhaps the way in which she has been manipulated brought her lack of experience home to her.

moneyfoolish

BananaRepublic wrote: »

I was under the impression that she stepped aside because she could not cope with the dirty campaign against her i.e. attacking her for some slightly careless remarks about May having no children, and attacks on her CV. It was not pleasant. That said, she is inexperienced.

I disagree. I thought her children remarks were in very bad taste and her CV was downright untruthful. I voted leave but what I've heard from May is much more impressive than anything I've heard from Leadsom.

talexuser

Her boss at Energy couldn't endorse her, Invesco Perpetual would say nothing about her competence, just she was never in charge of hundreds of people and did not have responsibility for large amounts of money. At first she denied the motherhood remarks, next day, still denying, the campaign insisted on the transcript, the next day still denying they wanted the audio recording, unfortunately it just proved what she did say, so they changed tack to a "conspiracy". If she folded under that criticism, I wouldn't like to think how she would react to Putin rolling some tanks across east Europe.

BananaRepublic

masonic wrote: »

Perhaps the way in which she has been manipulated brought her lack of experience home to her.

You might be right.

Glen_Clark

moneyfoolish wrote: »

What I've heard from May is much more impressive than anything I've heard from Leadsom.

I like what Theresa May said when she won, but then again the same could be said of Thatcher and Bliar and look how they turned out
Theresa May has already said that she won't call an early election. This is despite being on record as calling for Gordon Brown to so do when he became PM, on the basis that he had no democratic mandate. It's good to see that she's starting out upholding the same level of hypocrisy as her predecessor.