The Chronicles of Rishi

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

2022 - 1.2 million immigrants entered the U.K. 46K illegally via small boats. 3%.

They should be stopped but they’re not the problem.

The cynic in me thinks the Conservatives make more political capital out of not solving the problem.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

2022 - 1.2 million immigrants entered the U.K. 46K illegally via small boats. 3%.

They should be stopped but they’re not the problem.

That can't be right, we were promised it would be in the tens of thousands and george useless wants even more

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Pierre

2022 - 1.2 million immigrants entered the U.K. 46K illegally via small boats. 3%.

They should be stopped but they’re not the problem.

They are clearly a problem that needs to be grasped firmly, and Labour will not stop the flow.

We need firm laws in place to send illegal migrants back and ensure that we only allow those in that have the skills we need or are fleeing persecution in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong.

We do have a labour force shortage at present, which means we need to train our own people up in those areas so that they can replace those who have left, hopefully paying them more as well (which comes from the labour shortage, exactly as Brexiteers planned). At the same time, we need to stop people taking advantage of our generous benefits system.

Clearly, if we still have a shortage in any specific areas, we then need to open the way to foreigners with those skills to come into this country.

There has been a deliberate false message being passed around by remainers, the Opposition parties and the bleeding heart liberals that Brexiteers wanted to stop migration due to racial prejudice. This is not so. Brexiteers were merely asking for control of immigration to the levels this country can cope with.

---------- Post added at 12:46 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The cynic in me thinks the Conservatives make more political capital out of not solving the problem.

Why do you think the Illegal Migration Bill is going through Parliament? Surely, you weren’t expecting the government to break the law, were you?

You know perfectly well that we need the legal change put in place before we can deal with the people smugglers in a more effective way.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

They are clearly a problem that needs to be grasped firmly, and Labour will not stop the flow.

We need firm laws in place to send illegal migrants back and ensure that we only allow those in that have the skills we need or are fleeing persecution in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong.

We do have a labour force shortage at present, which means we need to train our own people up in those areas so that they can replace those who have left, hopefully paying them more as well (which comes from the labour shortage, exactly as Brexiteers planned). At the same time, we need to stop people taking advantage of our generous benefits system.

Clearly, if we still have a shortage in any specific areas, we then need to open the way to foreigners with those skills to come into this country.

There has been a deliberate false message being passed around by remainers, the Opposition parties and the bleeding heart liberals that Brexiteers wanted to stop migration due to racial prejudice. This is not so. Brexiteers were merely asking for control of immigration to the levels this country can cope with.

Then what do you have to say to George Eustice’s plan for blanket work visas for under 35s, regardless of what skills someone has? Unfettered freedom of movement to drive down working conditions and living standards for hard working Brits?

I trust you will show objectivity and condemn this proposal for not being consistent with our Brexit ambition.

They’re playing you for a mug, OB.

Where is the plan to reduce this migration considering we are rubber stamping an eye-watering one million migrants PER YEAR!

This country is supposedly at breaking point, and the Tories aren’t going to do a thing as long as the gravy train keeps flowing for their donors.

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Why do you think the Illegal Migration Bill is going through Parliament? Surely, you weren’t expecting the government to break the law, were you?

You know perfectly well that we need the legal change put in place before we can deal with the people smugglers in a more effective way.

That would be the migration bill that is illegal. They can engineer all kids of grievance that mugs will lap up blaming lawyers and judges for actually upholding the law by blocking it.

The proposals, even if they were legal, only apply to those who are here and get caught. It does nothing to stop boats.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Then what do you have to say to George Eustice’s plan for blanket work visas for under 35s, regardless of what skills someone has? Unfettered freedom of movement to drive down working conditions and living standards for hard working Brits?

I trust you will show objectivity and condemn this proposal for not being consistent with our Brexit ambition.

They’re playing you for a mug, OB.

Where is the plan to reduce this migration considering we are rubber stamping an eye-watering one million migrants PER YEAR!

This country is supposedly at breaking point, and the Tories aren’t going to do a thing as long as the gravy train keeps flowing for their donors.

---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 ----------



That would be the migration bill that is illegal. They can engineer all kids of grievance that mugs will lap up blaming lawyers and judges for actually upholding the law by blocking it.

The proposals, even if they were legal, only apply to those who are here and get caught. It does nothing to stop boats.

I do not support what Eustice said, of course I don’t. I have no idea where he was coming from if he has been reported correctly and this is not government policy.

The plan is the Illegal Migration Bill, and that will remove the incentive for people to come here. The migrants will know they will be sent directly back to their country and where that would mean danger for them or where there are no alternative arrangements in place, they will be off to Rwanda.

Why would they want to cough up all that money and risk their lives to come to a country that will simply oik them out again within a week or so? It will break the model used by the people smugglers and Labour has no plan to do so.

The Bill is not illegal as long as the appeal the government has lodged is successful. If it is not, then we will need to adjust our position vis a vis the ECHR. Then it will be legal.

I do sense, jfman, that you tend to think that existing laws and barriers can never be tackled to achieve change. But change to our immigration laws is what people want and so the government has a legitimate aspiration to put these new arrangements in place.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I do not support what Eustice said, of course I don’t. I have no idea where he was coming from if he has been reported correctly and this is not government policy.

What Government ministers say is absolutely Government policy unless he gets a slap down from Number 10 and quick sharp. I will not be holding my breath.

The plan is the Illegal Migration Bill, and that will remove the incentive for people to come here. The migrants will know they will be sent directly back to their country and where that would mean danger for them or where there are no alternative arrangements in place, they will be off to Rwanda.

Why would they want to cough up all that money and risk their lives to come to a country that will simply oik them out again within a week or so? It will break the model used by the people smugglers and Labour has no plan to do so.

Why not? They’re already risking their lives to cross. They’re already risking being detained.

The Bill is not illegal as long as the appeal the government has lodged is successful. If it is not, then we will need to adjust our position vis a vis the ECHR. Then it will be legal.

Those are two almighty qualifications to whether the Bill is in fact legal. This failing Government will be long gone before it pulls the ECHR.

I do sense, jfman, that you tend to think that existing laws and barriers can never be tackled to achieve change. But change to our immigration laws is what people want and so the government has a legitimate aspiration to put these new arrangements in place.

The Government is rubber stamping a million applications a year to live here legally. They aren’t even controlling migration among groups that they absolutely can.

Your belief in their intention, and competence, to deliver is astounding.

[Sephiroth]

Oddly, both OB and jfman are right!

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

What Government ministers say is absolutely Government policy unless he gets a slap down from Number 10 and quick sharp. I will not be holding my breath.

It’s not government policy. He clearly went off piste with that remark.

Originally Posted by jfman

Why not? They’re already risking their lives to cross. They’re already risking being detained.

Because there would be no point, as I’ve described.

Originally Posted by jfman

Those are two almighty qualifications to whether the Bill is in fact legal. This failing Government will be long gone before it pulls the ECHR.

It can be done if the will is there. The Bill will be passed this year and the ECHR will be dealt with.Nobody is suggesting that we will ditch the ECHR - that was considered and rejected.What is proposed as I understand it is a modification in respect of ECHR judgements on deporting illegal migrants.

Originally Posted by jfman

The Government is rubber stamping a million applications a year to live here legally. They aren’t even controlling migration among groups that they absolutely can.

Your belief in their intention, and competence, to deliver is astounding.

We at least agree that too many people are entering the country. We cannot support immigration on this scale. All our public services are under immense strain and housing is in short supply. Unfortunately, there is plenty of organised opposition to any controls on immigration and the government believes it needs to tread carefully here with an election on the horizon.

I don’t agree with that view and I think they should just go for it. I believe that would win more votes than they would lose.

Originally Posted by jfman

We all know what extreme right wing politics is. Don’t act dumb.

No, we dont.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s not government policy. He clearly went off piste with that remark.

Wishful thinking on your part, OB. Thus far no rebuke.

Because there would be no point, as I’ve described.

Only if they get caught.

It can be done if the will is there. The Bill will be passed this year and the ECHR will be dealt with.Nobody is suggesting that we will ditch the ECHR - that was considered and rejected.What is proposed as I understand it is a modification in respect of ECHR judgements on deporting illegal migrants.

So many things can be done if there’s will - like reducing net migration to the tens of thousands. This Government has none. You are the English dog barking to their whistle.

We at least agree that too many people are entering the country. We cannot support immigration on this scale. All our public services are under immense strain and housing is in short supply. Unfortunately, there is plenty of organised opposition to any controls on immigration and the government believes it needs to tread carefully here with an election on the horizon.

Yet the Government does nothing to adequately fund public services, or improve housing supply. Take off the blinkers, OB. The tiny numbers on the boats are an irrelevance.

I don’t agree with that view and I think they should just go for it. I believe that would win more votes than they would lose.

The next Government can work it out, just like everything else.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

The next Government can work it out, just like everything else.

Not if it’s a Labour government, they won’t. Labour is quite happy with all this immigration, with their obsession with having a ‘multi-cultural society’.

They will be putting up bunting on the beaches with lots of beer and sausage rolls.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not if it’s a Labour government, they won’t. Labour is quite happy with all this immigration, with their obsession with having a ‘multi-cultural society’.

They will be putting up bunting on the beaches with lots of beer and sausage rolls.

And what do you think the Tories are after 14 years? Tough on immigration

Millions of people, year in year out. Even they don’t believe the lines you peddle.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not if it’s a Labour government, they won’t. Labour is quite happy with all this immigration, with their obsession with having a ‘multi-cultural society’.

They will be putting up bunting on the beaches with lots of beer and sausage rolls.

Or falafels?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s not government policy. He clearly went off piste with that remark.

I's pretty clear that the government is more than happy for Eustice to float the idea and to see what reaction it gets.

If it's strongly negative, he will be chastised. If not, it could well be added to the list of measures aimed at reducing some of the contributions of Brexit to the cost of living crisis.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

And what do you think the Tories are after 14 years? Tough on immigration

Millions of people, year in year out. Even they don’t believe the lines you peddle.

You wouldn’t advocate them breaking the law, would you?The law needs to change before we can stop the boats. You don’t really need me to explain that to you.

---------- Post added at 19:33 ---------- Previous post was at 19:31 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I's pretty clear that the government is more than happy for Eustice to float the idea and to see what reaction it gets.

If it's strongly negative, he will be chastised. If not, it could well be added to the list of measures aimed at reducing some of the contributions of Brexit to the cost of living crisis.

I think that’s a misreading of the situation. The cabinet does not want to air such disagreements in public if they can avoid it. They have enough on their plates as it is.