Another new Brexit thread

[Kazzydeyna]

You're inventing stuff though.

How many EU immigrants do you know that don't speak English?

Who put the hoops there for the Pakistani doctor? Including (till yesterday) the charges for a doctor in the NHS to use the NHS. Clue, it wasn't the EU.

Skills or abilities? Are you talking about low-skilled care workers or key-worker care workers? They won't get in (from any nationality) under the new immigration bill. It's discriminatory all right - against poor people.

The hoops for the Pakistani doctor have to be there as a result of FOM. If they weren't we would have to have FOM for the whole world and very few people on either side of this debate are legitimately arguing for that.
They are there as a result of us saying to approx 500m people "you can come in and settle here, no questions asked. Irrespective of any skills, you dont need to speak the language, you can just come in" at the same time as saying to the rest of the world "some of you can come in but we're going to have to make it harder for you than we do for the Europeans".

That is discriminatory but apparently arguing that Africans for example should be treated equally to Europeans makes me a racist and makes those arguing in favour of this blatant discrimination whiter than white. So to speak.

 

[Vic]

By who? Use Google if you need reassured. In the meantime I can supply these - I'm not sure how quickly you read, so I've put page numbers where only a part of the article / book is relevant. I have plenty of post 2001 if you like, but you appeared to need citations for my point about the Blair govt split on the EU. I've gone for my own preference as I wasn't sure if you preferred Harvard/Chicago style citations - Each university tends to have their own conventions on this tbh.

Meredith, Stephen C. "A Catalyst for Secession? European Divisions on the Parliamentary Right of the Labour Party 1962–72 and the Schism of British Social Democracy." Historical Research 85, no. 228 (2012): 329-51.

Crain, M., and K. Matheny. "Labor's Identity Crisis." California Law Review 89, no. 6 (2001): 1767-846.

Rothchild, Donald. "British Labour [party] and European Union." Social Research 23 (1956): 89-105.

Aughey, Arthur. Nationalism, Devolution, and the Challenge to the United Kingdom State. London ; Sterling, Va.: Pluto Press, 2001.

Bulmer, Simon. "New Labour, New European Policy? Blair, Brown and Utilitarian Supranationalism." Parliamentary Affairs 61, no. 4 (2008): 597-620.

Gaffney, John. Political Parties and the European Union. London ; New York: Routledge, 1996.

Heath, A. F., Jowell, Roger, and Curtice, John. The Rise of New Labour Party Policies and Voter Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Baimbridge, Mark., Burkitt, Brian, and Whyman, Philip. Implications of the Euro a Critical Perspective from the Left. London: Routledge, 2006.

I was momentarily impressed until I checked one of them.

Crain, M., and K. Matheny. "Labor's Identity Crisis." California Law Review 89, no. 6 (2001): 1767-846. "In this Article, Professor Crain and Mr. Matheny assess the consequences of organized labor's appeal to unalloyed class consciousness in an increasingly diverse workforce."

Glancing at the other titles, the only one that might look relevant was "British Labour [party] and European Union." but I'm not sure what anything written in 1956 could tell us about divisions in the Blair cabinet.

So as not to appear a total fraud, you might indicate (cite) where you got that little list.

 

[Vic]

The hoops for the Pakistani doctor have to be there as a result of FOM. If they weren't we would have to have FOM for the whole world and very few people on either side of this debate are legitimately arguing for that.
They are there as a result of us saying to approx 500m people "you can come in and settle here, no questions asked. Irrespective of any skills, you dont need to speak the language, you can just come in" at the same time as saying to the rest of the world "some of you can come in but we're going to have to make it harder for you than we do for the Europeans".

That is discriminatory but apparently arguing that Africans for example should be treated equally to Europeans makes me a racist and makes those arguing in favour of this blatant discrimination whiter than white. So to speak.

What's it got to do with FOM? We're a sovereign nation. We could pass the Pakistani Doctors Easy Immigration Act. Or the Filipino Care Workers Easy Immigration Act. Or the Fijian Railway Workers Immigration Act. Or next year the Please Anyone Come and Pick our Crops Act.

 

[BrianW]

This issue of "open borders" is actually quite complex.

Under EU law if you move to another EU country you have three months to find a job or demonstate you can support yourself - for example by being a millionaire or having a decent pension. After that, the host country is entitled to tell you to bugger off home if you have failed in this respect.

Some EU countries enforce this. The UK could never be arsed as it was "too much trouble". Much easier to blame the EU for people coming to live here and then taking the piss.

99% of the problems in the UK are caused by the UK Government - or more precisely, the outdated form of UK governance, that is no longer fit for purpose. Modern countries cannot be governed effectively by clueless amateurs whose most notable qualification is that their dad knew someone influential.

To be very plain I don't think the UK system is capable of managing an immigration system, whether "fairly" or otherwise. But the ruling class are very good at talking about the issues, and gaining advantage from winding the plebs up on the subject. They have been doing this all my lifetime - from "If you want a N***** for a Neighbour, Vote Labour," onwards.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I was momentarily impressed until I checked one of them.

Crain, M., and K. Matheny. "Labor's Identity Crisis." California Law Review 89, no. 6 (2001): 1767-846. "In this Article, Professor Crain and Mr. Matheny assess the consequences of organized labor's appeal to unalloyed class consciousness in an increasingly diverse workforce."

Glancing at the other titles, the only that might look relevant was "British Labour [party] and European Union." but I'm not sure what anything written in 1956 could tell us about divisions in the Blair cabinet.

So as not to appear a total fraud, you might indicate (cite) where you got that little list.

A library mate. The Crain does give you some wider context if you read it - although admittedly not blair specific obvs. Ditto the 56 article and any number of early 70's ones I didn't even bother with.

 

[blueinsa]

What's it got to do with FOM? We're a sovereign nation. We could pass the Pakistani Doctors Easy Immigration Act. Or the Filipino Care Workers Easy Immigration Act. Or the Fijian Railway Workers Immigration Act. Or next year the Please Anyone Come and Pick our Crops Act.

Or leave the EU and set up a points based immigration policy open to the whole world.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

What's it got to do with FOM? We're a sovereign nation. We could pass the Pakistani Doctors Easy Immigration Act. Or the Filipino Care Workers Easy Immigration Act. Or the Fijian Railway Workers Immigration Act. Or next year the Please Anyone Come and Pick our Crops Act.

What it has to do with FOM is that, put simply, under FOM we have no real way of limiting the numbers coming in, or even planning on a certain number coming in in any given year.

Accordingly, any responsible govt has to therefore restrict supply of immigration where it can, IE to those areas of the world not covered by FOM.

This is discrimination against those people who are unlucky enough to be born outside the EU. I disagree with this as I don't believe discrimination should be a deciding factor in who can come and add value to our wonderful country. All men are created equal.

This makes me a racist.

I'd much rather see a situation where we treat ALL potential immigrants equally and do not give special dispensation to those with a European passport. The only way to do that from within the EU is to have unlimited immigration for the entire world and I don't think that is a sensible solution.

Wanting to treat Europeans, Asians, Africans, Americans, and Australians (and everybody else) equally is, in the Orwellian world of EU fanatics, apparently a racist thought whilst wanting to give special rights to Europeans that we don't extend to anyone else is, conversely, an ideologically pure one.

The EU: For racists who don't want people to know they are racists.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

What it has to do with FOM is that, put simply, under FOM we have no real way of limiting the numbers coming in, or even planning on a certain number coming in in any given year.

Accordingly, any responsible govt has to therefore restrict supply of immigration where it can, IE to those areas of the world not covered by FOM.

This is discrimination against those people who are unlucky enough to be born outside the EU. I disagree with this as I don't believe discrimination should be a deciding factor in who can come and add value to our wonderful country. All men are created equal.

This makes me a racist.

I'd much rather see a situation where we treat ALL potential immigrants equally and do not give special dispensation to those with a European passport. The only way to do that from within the EU is to have unlimited immigration for the entire world and I don't think that is a sensible solution.

Wanting to treat Europeans, Asians, Africans, Americans, and Australians (and everybody else) equally is, in the Orwellian world of EU fanatics, apparently a racist thought whilst wanting to give special rights to Europeans that we don't extend to anyone else is, conversely, an ideologically pure one.

The EU: For racists who don't want people to know they are racists.

Tut,tut - You forgot to cite supporting scholarship for @Vic

Singh, Rajnish. "Is the EU Institutionally Racist?" The Parliament Magazine, 2018, The Parliament Magazine, Mar 8, 2018.

 

[Vic]

A library mate. The Crain does give you some wider context if you read it - although admittedly not blair specific obvs. Ditto the 56 article and any number of early 70's ones I didn't even bother with.

You've been to a library today?

Not Blair specific....?

"Can you cite anything about splits in the Blair cabinet about the EU?"

"No but here's a random list of academic papers with some remote wider context."


Seriously, if you really have read all (or indeed any) of those, just one relevant quote would allay my fears that you're just another WUM.

 

[Vic]

Or leave the EU and set up a points based immigration policy open to the whole world.

Another point well missed.