Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Enterprise_1701C

vivatifosi wrote: »

Brexit aside, if they are refugees, then they are supposed to be housed in the first safe country, which won't be Britain unless they arrive from the country by plane, in which case the issue won't be at a port.

If they are a citizen on another country, lawfully entering the UK via the border, then this is something that we should be discussing. As per the previous article I posted, back channels appear to be opening already.

If they are illegal immigrants trying to enter the UK from France, then one needs to ask how they have travelled across the EU illegally and why they are the UK's problem.

The movement of both illegal immigrants and refugees within Europe is a problem for the EU, not so much because of camps in Calais, where the maximum numbers were in the low tens of thousands, but largely due to Merkel's open door policy, during which more than a million entered. That is a problem that is categorically NOT of Britain's making.

On Friday I was talking to an Indian friend whose husband has worked in liberal Germany for many years. He is now having a terrible time there by virtue of being brown skinned. He is a liberal being who has blended in for years, but is now tarred with the same brush as those who are behaving inappropriately... stealing, mugging, assaulting women etc. People who entered Germany under the open borders policy but who are now disrupting society because they behave inappropriately.

I have huge sympathy for the plight of refugees but as a woman I have to ask why so many of them are men, and why if the country was so dangerous, they left so many of their women and children behind. I do support the resettlement of refugee families, as well as the support of refugees in neighbouring countries to the war zone through financial support from the UK.

I have to say I totally agree with this. Apparently when camera crews were filming at the border with, I believe, Hungary, they struggled to find a group of refugees that included women and children. I also have not been the only one to observe that the majority of the men are very short haired, surely if you are struggling in your country you do not prioritise getting your hair cut. However, if you are a soldier of the regime, that haircut is provided free. Also amazed at how many have mobile phones, expensive ones at that, if they are refugees and broke how are they maintaining those contracts?

I think the UK has the right idea in helping refugees close to their home country. The idea of accommodating refugees has always been on a temporary basis, whilst that country sorts out it's problems. I cannot see many of the current "refugees" going home once they have settled in europe.

I am also very uncomfortable with the way Germany tried to cover up the amount of sex crimes committed by the "refugees" she invited in. They have a totally different attitude to women in the far east.

As far as I am concerned true refugees should be housed in the first safe area/country they arrive in, then be sent home when things have settled in order to help rebuild their country.

I think the main problem has been the amount of people jumping on the band wagon. in a lot of the interviews they asked people where they came from and the answer was often Pakistan and Nigeria or the suchlike, countries that are not at war. These are not refugees, they are simply after a better life, subsidised by the west. There are ways of legally entering countries but they were obviously people who thought they would not get in legally so decided there was safety in numbers.

So how should we deal with it if the eu decide to start shipping them here? Any people without papers should be put on the first ship back to their point of origin, no arguments, no being put up in 5 star hotels, just taken straight onto the next ship back. Do that for a few months and people might take the hint.

Same with the boat people, they should be taken back to Turkey and dropped off, that would soon discourage them from risking their lives, and those of the few children that get picked up. Picking them up and taking them to somewhere like Greece only encourages the people to keep paying the people smugglers, who simply do not care about the safety of the boats.

Arklight

buglawton wrote: »

So Adonis is essentially a democracy-hater. And he may indeed be correct in that a democracy-hating civil service is a war with the government which is attempting to represent that democracy.

We mustn't forget that in order that the UK can gain control of its own immigration policy, the EU overlords have told us we must leave the EU and cannot be part of an open goods and services market with the EU. Strange but true. It'll be a price to pay, that's why a 52-48 vote was needed as a mandate.

I'd also say that immigration is a good thing - when it's tailored and controlled at a national level by our own answerable members of parliament.

We are in control of our own immigration policy already, but no UK government has used the powers it has. Free movement isn’t free emigration.

More Brexit lies.

cogito

phillw wrote: »

Maybe it's your cognitive ability that is at fault, he seems completely aware & you appear to have just repeated what he said.

No I didn't. Comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

phillw

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

I have to say I totally agree with this. Apparently when camera crews were filming at the border with, I believe, Hungary, they struggled to find a group of refugees that included women and children. I also have not been the only one to observe that the majority of the men are very short haired, surely if you are struggling in your country you do not prioritise getting your hair cut. However, if you are a soldier of the regime, that haircut is provided free. Also amazed at how many have mobile phones, expensive ones at that, if they are refugees and broke how are they maintaining those contracts?

Similarly if you go smartly dressed to your ESA/PIP assessment then there is nothing wrong with you.

I guess if you need to leave your country because it's not safe then you should leave your phone behind so you aren't judged.

I despise the sexist attitude that men have any obligation to women.

cogito wrote: »

No I didn't. Comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

You did, denial is clearly your strong point. I would hazard a guess you voted to leave the EU.

buglawton

Arklight wrote: »

We are in control of our own immigration policy already, but no UK government has used the powers it has. Free movement isn’t free emigration.

More Brexit lies.

Anyone else like to take issue with that ludicrous statement (the first sentence)? I'm not for taking the bait.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

NON EU refugees/citizens will be attempting to LEAVE the EU. Why would France or the rest of the EU want to stop that happening?

Oh the irony.

Indeed the irony. Merkel has an open door policy to refugees into the EU. Other countries don't. Now much of Europe is home to the unwanted. People that no one knows what to do with. People with no future. Make the UK pay. Hardly a club that one wishes to be a member of.

cogito

phillw wrote: »

I would hazard a guess you voted to leave the EU.

I voted to do what is in the best interests of the future of my country.

Moby

buglawton wrote: »

Anyone else like to take issue with that ludicrous statement (the first sentence)? I'm not for taking the bait.

It's not a ludicrous statement. We chose to introduce free movement straight away instead of delaying it. Thatcher...our democratically elected PM in 1988 made a speech extolling the virtues of free movement of people, capital and goods. By the way we have always had direct control over immigration from non EU countries anyway which amounts to roughly half of our immigration.

Tromking

Moby wrote: »

It's not a ludicrous statement. We chose to introduce free movement straight away instead of delaying it. Thatcher...our democratically elected PM in 1988 made a speech extolling the virtues of free movement of people, capital and goods. By the way we have always had direct control over immigration from non EU countries anyway which amounts to roughly half of our immigration.

All decisions or non decisions made by politicians that have irked parts of the electorate for 30 years or so. Cameron then stupidly gives the electorate the opportunity on that specific issue to pay back the political class back for those 30 years and bingo, Brexit.
But you knew that Moby.

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by Moby
It's not a ludicrous statement. We chose to introduce free movement straight away instead of delaying it. Thatcher...our democratically elected PM in 1988 made a speech extolling the virtues of free movement of people, capital and goods. By the way we have always had direct control over immigration from non EU countries anyway which amounts to roughly half of our immigration.

How large was the EU at the time. Decisions made need to kept in context.