OK I see, I thought you were talking just about British Nationals, who can come, but not their partners unless they meet certain criteria?
Does this relate to the 'non-Dom' issue Labour keep going on about?
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Does this relate to the 'non-Dom' issue Labour keep going on about?
You mean, not only are you banging a foreigner, she's a fricking immigrant? Talk about going over to the dark side!
Bleeding immigrants, coming over here, taking our wolves...
No, unless the British person plus the foreign partner combined earn above the earnings threshhold then the foreign partner cannot live in the UK.
In my case, when I first married, I was young and earnt very little. Now I'm retired we don't earn enough. In any case the earnings level proposed is less than what most British people earn.
There must be plenty of British people who are partnered or married in my situation who may want to return to the UK.
For younger people, like I was at the time, I would have had to move to France for us to be together.
I thought that is what you did?
Sorry, not following the plot here, my original response was that Brits can come and go as they please, but any foreign partner cannot. Unless that is, the partner earns a certain amount individually, or combined with their partners income. Then they can come, yes?
I can understand for someone in your position who is retired (and assume your partner is too) then this is a problem, should you ever want to come back.
However Paul, have you not made it clear many times you would not come back, especially after Brexit?
I can see such 'obstacles' arising more and more in the next two decades, from many governments as migration, in particular to Europe, including the UK, is going to get more difficult to sustain as the demand (climate driven if nothing else) rises. Any form of migration is likely to become 'hindered' by such developments as these, at least until the powers that be wake up to the potential size of the problems that will occur and to the internal resistance that will grow (is growing) and start to plan properly for the surge in migration that has yet to come in Tsunami style. In such a context this kind of restriction, is punitive, but is still only at what might be called the 'sandbag filling' stage of migration policy development.
Yes, which was the point of the article, restricting whom British people can love or not love and whether they can live or not live in the Uk with their partner.
When I first married we lived in the UK and she lived in the UK for 32 years. She wouldn't have been able to do that under the new rules and Brexit. We left in 2007 and have lived in France since. With absolutely zero intent of ever going back.
I'm not worried about myself, just giving my situation as an example. I'm speaking from a general perspective. It's a horrendous policy.
The problem was the Brexit vote which started this and has exactly the opposite effect of what was intended. But we knew that. But they wouldn't listen. The Uk are just hoping they are so far away at the edge of Europe and all the foreigners and refugees will go elsewhere. Not going to happen.
Exactly, bad as we are , Brexit or no Brexit, people are still wanting to come(*) to the UK... go figure!
(*Some risking their lives)
As I said, these measures are punitive and I suspect will get worse over time, (even with a Labour government), the migration Tsunami, has yet to occur, but its coming over the next two/three decades. In future even British nationals may well find returning is a problem and have to sign away their right to such a return, if they decided to emigrate.
The governments current punitive 'sand-bagging' policy making, will start to become a 'perimeter defence' policy making activity, and so on, right up to 'raising the drawbridge stage' actions and finally the 'man-the- barricades'.
Not an endearing thought, is it?
Because the UK is considerably better, safety wise, economically wise than the countries people are leaving. To be a complete deterrent the UK would have to become worse than the countries that the people are leaving. They're getting there.
What is misleading by the British media towards the Uk electorate is that they're told that they're all going to the UK whereas the majority are already going elsewhere. And that there isn't enough space or funding to support further immigration. It's complete and utter nonsense. It's because the infrastructure , building and labour force isn't there. The fault of governments and exasperated by Brexit.
They probably said the same when the population of Britain was 2 million.
A Brexit bonus, perhaps!!
I think it's more to do with the public's perceptions of mixing of asylum seekers with economic migrants.
The UK public is told that where people who are purporting to be seeking asylum are passing through perfectly safe countries, simply because they want to come to the UK, they are therefore in effect illegal entrants. If they are real asylum seekers, they should stay in the country in which they first arrive, then apply for movement further afield. When economic migrants purport to be asylum seekers, the water gets muddied, the rhetoric more diverse, the solutions further deferred and the political landscape ( in some cases dangerously) change.
The reality is that migration all over Europe is becoming a problem that won't go away and nobody really knows what to do about it, it's 'another can kicked into the long grass'.
Last edited:
This has been repeated over and over again. Still the British media and the government trot the lies out.
The UK do not allow for legal routes (other than to look good for propaganda-eg Ukraine or obliged to - Hong Kong). They can't apply to go to the UK because the UK have deliberately set it up to be so. They are not illegal immigrants.
The same thing is repeated over and over again. Do the British object to the 1.2 million people (gross figure - not the net figure of 745k) who have immigrated into the UK last year or the 40,000 (3%) who came as asylum/refugees of whom on average about 70% have a legal claim.
Where are these immigrants supposed to go, the first country nearest where they come from? Therefore Rwanda can't be acceptable because they were in the UK first, unless the Uk is classed as an unsafe country. It's not the first safe country that has to deal with the people - it's a fallacy and lie invented by the British government.
An asylum seeker is by definition is not an illegal immigrant
Just on this point - it is not a legal requirement. In fact, if it were, it would be a very, very bad rule to have, which is why international refugee law does not require it.
Very sick country.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...0882759182a9b9#block-65c10b178f0882759182a9b9
SNP condemns Sunak's £1,000 Rwanda bet as 'grotesque, callous and downright cruel'
Section 1.3 of the ministerial code is clear that:
f. Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...0882759182a9b9#block-65c10b178f0882759182a9b9
SNP condemns Sunak's £1,000 Rwanda bet as 'grotesque, callous and downright cruel'
Section 1.3 of the ministerial code is clear that:
f. Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests;
A billionaire making a bet with a millionaire on people's lives. Sure it'll go down well.
Just highlights how out of touch the prime minister is.
Starmer says "I'll have a hundred of that"
Anybody want to bet £1000 he doesn't go through this bet?
Someone should bet Starmer £1,000 that he can't say Israel are committing war crimes.
Well the ICJ stopped (just) short of that so why should he go further than one of the highest international courts?
Sunak is SO bad at politics! He just wrote Starmer’s PMQs for him.
- Is it becoming of a PM to make wagers on the outcomes of people seeking asylum?
- Is it not crass that, during a cost of living crisis when X% of people have less than £500 in savings, that the PM can spaff £1000 on a nonsense bet?
- What does it say about the PM LITERALLY gambling on his flagship policy working?
If I was anywhere near the social media bosses I’d be getting them to plaster out memes and post about that in every corner of the digital world!
- Is it becoming of a PM to make wagers on the outcomes of people seeking asylum?
- Is it not crass that, during a cost of living crisis when X% of people have less than £500 in savings, that the PM can spaff £1000 on a nonsense bet?
- What does it say about the PM LITERALLY gambling on his flagship policy working?
If I was anywhere near the social media bosses I’d be getting them to plaster out memes and post about that in every corner of the digital world!
"The PM can't think on his feet and has zero morality"
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Just hold this up
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He's such a vile individual which says something coming after Johnson. Tories will go into the gutter to fight for this election.
The act of seeking asylum is not illegal, however attempting to entry a country by a route that is clearly defined as part of the criminal enterprise of 'people -trafficking' and defined by that country as being illegal, is!
Yes, people feel forced into this illegal route because the UK government does not allow anything different, except in defined cases, e.g. Hong Kong, Ukraine, etc. latterly, and such as East Asians from Kenya, and others, earlier. However, it is still taking part in an illegal criminal enterprise and something any government has to stop, and be seen to being attempting to do so, and provides effective cover for the inadequate overall migration policy of the Tories.
This is part of what I have referred to in earlier posts, that there is no coherent migration strategy. This government has just been reacting to situations that have been developing, but they are not the main problem, it mixes up asylum and economic migrants in its pronouncements in order in some cases to deliberately cause confusion, or as @Paul the Wolf would have it, 'telling lies'.
Such misdirection (if that's what it is) leads on to nonsense policies like the Rwanda debacle and further muddies the waters.
I don't know if it is or not, but the UK government adheres to the idea of it, and is another indication of how unprepared, even after all this time the present government is on these matters. Along with Climate, Energy, and Natural Resources, Migration policy will dominate the next two decades at least.
This is precisely the point I am making, this government and previous ones have virtually made up migration policy 'on the hoof', whether it was 'Windrush', or other situations that came later, it was all a matter of responding to 'events' as they occurred. This approach is no longer either capable of being pursued, or in self -interest terms alone, feasible. We now know that climate change alone will render parts of the world uninhabitable, millions will be on the move, not just to avoid unjust regimes, persecution etc. but simply to survive; the northern hemisphere will be the likely preferred destination and at the moment at least in public very few countries in the Northern hemisphere are ready for it.
People trafficking is illegal, trying to obtain asylum in a country is not illegal and neither is leaving a country. Therefore the responsibility of the illegality is on the Uk government. There would be no need for people to pay traffickers or make dangerous crossings if the UK government allowed people to obtain legal access. Therefore they are promoting illegal activity. Aiding and abetting the traffickers.
But they've managed to brainwash large sections of the British public to conflate legal immigration with asylum seekers and make no mention at all of actual illegal immigrants because they have absolutely zero idea of how many there are..
Why is everyone so wound up about 40000 people but won't say anything about 1.2million legal immigrants or the unknown number of illegal immigrants - brainwashing and the inability to admit that Brexit is the cause of the huge increase.
Because they are being trafficked by criminals, its not rocket science!
Agreed many people, especially on the far right, don't want to see any immigrants at all. However the majority recognise (many from their own lineage) that the UK has always taken in immigrants, throughout its history and it will need more over time, for economic reasons much as anything else, especially young people who will have families and help the birth rate, etc.
Brexit is, in this matter at least, your 'red-herring' Paul, people who came here from the EU under freedom of movement were always likely to return to their native lands at some point, they were not the solution to the UK's low birth rate and ageing population. Only those who want to stay and build families and contribute throughout their lives. Mostly this from countries outside the EU, some of which seek asylum as well as economic migration. This is why a coherent migration policy has to be part of the main discussions and policy priorities in the UK over the next two decades.
Wtf. How is he not being hammered more for this? Absolutely disgusting for a low level MP let alone the fecking PM.
But they wouldn't be trafficked by criminals if the Uk had legal routes?!? So set up legal routes and remove their fears about them and the dangers they pretend to be so worried about would be over.
The people from outside the EU are coming for short-term work visas, not to stay in the Uk and pay taxes and settle down. They can't even bring their family. They'll be replaced by another group every couple of years. In every aspect Brexit has had the exact opposite effect of what people they thought they were voting for - worse trade, more immigration, less democracy, etc from A to Z, not one aspect has been any kind of benefit (and there's much worse to come).
Surely it's the traffickers who are doing illegal things not the asylum seeker
he’s just having a piss fake wager with a mate for a laugh. he’s just showing us how much he’s one of us.
It's been such an honour to serve my constituents that I don't want to do it in the opposition Party
That is correct sir.
Clearly, in a situation massively amplified, if not created, by the UK making it incredibly difficult, and in some cases impossible, to legally apply for asylum.
Yes, that's why a coherent migration policy is needed.
However, in the real world the people-trafficking criminality has to be stopped first. Whilst people still choose to make use of criminals, and such criminal activity is seen by many to be a form of 'queue jumping, because only those who can afford to pay these criminals are seen to be benefiting. Then I suspect they will not persuade either the government, nor the majority of people in the UK to seek a better solution.
This has become something of a 'Mexican-standoff' situation and perfect cover for the Tories, but I suspect a Labour Government would also have to resolve the small boats issues first, before it can win over a stronger support for more coherent routes for genuine asylum seekers, from the general populace.
If this is the case, then the policy rules will have to change and yes at some point relatives and dependents will need to be properly accommodated and the whole process made coherent and clear that if you apply to come here you are expected to stay.*
As I've mentioned before I believe we are a long way off a coherent migration approach yet, let alone such a defined policy. The current Tory government will introduce new and punitive actions (*) ( some I previously referred to as 'sand-bagging') along the way, this will be extrapolated when the Rwanda thing fails, probably in the run up to the GE.
I don't think this aspect of Brexit has caused any lasting problems, specifically in terms of immigration issues. The numbers of people arriving in the UK under freedom of movement did lead to lowering of wages in some areas, which have since risen (in part also because of Covid) as those people moved back. True some businesses have suffered a hit on their bottom line as a result of wage rises and it has forced them to have to look once again at training, and hence retaining, their own UK based people, instead of raiding the workforce of others. Conversely many companies are benefiting from being able to bring in specialist staff from the rest of the world, where crucial vacancies exist, at a lower rate than exists in the EU.
As you have often predicted the full effects from Brexit are likely to be experienced when the barriers to trade increase in the coming period, but I strongly suspect, it will only be the right-wing extremists who get upset about the apparent effects of Brexit on migration.
Why does the illegal trafficking have to stop first? Open legal routes and it puts it out of business just about. Problem solved. But we know why - it wouldn't satisfy those who want to blame immigrants.
Wages were lower because of freedom of movement from Europeans? Another myth of Brexit. If that was the case why were/are the salaries in many EU countries higher than the UK - they must have moved to be poorer?
Saw that Starmer wants to get equal pay for BAME people. Don't the same laws apply to everyone?
I know you believe Brexit will work and so does Starmer but it's impossible. I've got more chance of winning the lottery and I don't even play the lottery.
The far-right will get worse because the policy is insanely stupid and the more it fails the worse they will get.
Companies and the government are paying agencies to bring staff in. So the people aren't being paid more. Nobody benefits from this, the people will come and go and be earning less than before because they have to pay for visa and agency fees. And they won't pay much tax, so the country loses out.
Specialists are brought in to do the jobs British people were supposed to be doing after 'x' years of training. All those plumbers, electricians and builders Starmer's got lined up to be trained (even if they don't want to be) . Alice in Wonderland is more realistic.
Meanwhile the economy shrinks more and more and barriers grow and grow and people will realise eventually and the brighter people will move abroad, because they can, not the humble worker. It's a slow death. Just like the 60s brain drain.
Last edited:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...but-is-united-in-criticism-of-sunaks-policies
Truss’s PopCon group splinters on launch but attacks Sunak’s policies
Just two of four MPs billed to speak present as launch event amounts to evisceration of PM’s government
The decomposed lettuce, the haunted pencil and the 30p neanderthal.
Get out the popcoRn
Truss’s PopCon group splinters on launch but attacks Sunak’s policies
Just two of four MPs billed to speak present as launch event amounts to evisceration of PM’s government
The decomposed lettuce, the haunted pencil and the 30p neanderthal.
Get out the popcoRn
The turd that just won't flush.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
About those waiting lists...
Rishi Sunak accused of personally holding up deal to end doctors’ strikes
Exclusive: Sources say PM has blocked talks due to concerns about knock-on effect of more generous pay offer
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...onally-holding-up-deal-to-end-doctors-strikes
Rishi Sunak accused of personally holding up deal to end doctors’ strikes
Exclusive: Sources say PM has blocked talks due to concerns about knock-on effect of more generous pay offer
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...onally-holding-up-deal-to-end-doctors-strikes
Can’t believe what I’ve just heard from Sunak in PMQ’s. Trying to score political points on Starmer’s views on Trans rights, all the while Brianna Ghey’s mother is in the chamber.
Absolute fecking scumbag. There is literally no depths these vermin will lower themselves to.
Absolute fecking scumbag. There is literally no depths these vermin will lower themselves to.
Just seen that myself. Unbelievable. He really is a Cnut.