Your argument is not even close to being coherent.
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (March Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
Your argument is not even close to being coherent.
Caporegime
Nothing, at all, is forcing them to adopt these policies. They are 100%, pure bred, Tory. The simple idiocy of their tens of thousands target is their own.
Stop blaming the EU for Theresa May's actions.
Those who try to bring spouses from outside of the EU are seeing huge changes because we are doing everything we can to block them by throwing up more and more barriers.
No one is suggesting a mass deportation exercise either. It is possible to do this sensibly instead of the hyperbolic nonsense that some suggest will happen.
Well pick it apart then, should be pretty easy if it's so poorly put together.
Caporegime
In the couldn't make it up column: Leave.EU employs EU migrants. Ha!
Caporegime
Already posted. Completely irrelevant. Move on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
I'm pretty sure the Home Office and the Treasury won't be taking memos from the Leave camp, either way; particularly re spending. Rhetoric is all well and good, but if you aren't putting the needed funds in, you aren't achieving much, are you? As per my questions above, what gives you the great confidence you seem to have that the cuts to the Home Office will stop and reverse in Britain outside of the EU? It would need to expand, if anything, given your requirements.
Hence why I'm puzzled by the frequent, sweeping promises thrown about by the politicians on the Leave side, with the least power to deliver them, or indeed be held accountable for them. And precisely because we do get what we need, in a flexible, red-tape-free way, plenty of people here have developed a huge chip on their shoulders; ironically through hearsay and rumour rather than anything substantive, conflating all and sundry.
Additionally, even under the current spell of May's reign at the HO, the claim that we are somehow shafting the non-EU migration level is gonads; look at the actual numbers and the trends:
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/non-european-labour-migration-uk
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...sticsquarterlyreport/february2016#main-points
Furthermore, if the OBR forecasts are on target, why take a risky leap out of the EU if the migration levels will settle naturally (effectively halved) by 2021 anyway?
Lastly, with one's preference for white, native-English-spoken non-EU migration, one is yet to demonstrate the likelihood of Assies, Canadians, Americans, et al, to come here to build walls, wipe bums and pick fruit.
If that's your common EU migrant picture that is, which again is about as statistically accurate as snow at the equator! But do go on.
Caporegime
How is it irrelevant? I'll admit it's more funny than relevant but it's hardly completely irrelevant. If pillars of the Leave campaign can't even manage to man their own campaigns without using immigrant labour what does that say about the wider economy? Or are we to imagine that it's only the special demands of the Leave campaign that needs to employ EU migrant workers?
Don
Wouldn't happen if weren't part of the EU!
Caporegime
Pretty much this.
I'm pretty sure the Home Office and the Treasury won't be taking memos from the Leave camp, either way; particularly re spending. Rhetoric is all well and good, but if you aren't putting the needed funds in, you aren't achieving much, are you? As per my questions above, what gives you the great confidence you seem to have that the cuts to the Home Office will stop and reverse in Britain outside of the EU? It would need to expand, if anything, given your requirements.
Hence why I'm puzzled by the frequent, sweeping promises thrown about by the politicians on the Leave side, with the least power to deliver them, or indeed be held accountable for them. And precisely because we do get what we need, in a flexible, red-tape-free way, plenty of people here have developed a huge chip on their shoulders; ironically through hearsay and rumour rather than anything substantive, conflating all and sundry.
Additionally, even under the current spell of May's reign at the HO, the claim that we are somehow shafting the non-EU migration level is gonads; look at the actual numbers and the trends:
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/non-european-labour-migration-uk
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...sticsquarterlyreport/february2016#main-points
Furthermore, if the OBR forecasts are on target, why take a risky leap out of the EU if the migration levels will settle naturally (effectively halved) by 2021 anyway?
Lastly, with one's preference for white, native-English-spoken non-EU migration, one is yet to demonstrate the likelihood of Assies, Canadians, Americans, et al, to come here to build walls, wipe bums and pick fruit.
fascinating.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
If, as they claim, there are hundreds of thousands of British applicants, who can fill those vacancies easily (just waiting to pounce, in fact, haha), with at least equal or greater skill; why have they struggled to locate them? Perhaps fewer than expected have applied for the short term work that was on offer, and the EU guys took a punt, with the employer not even realising they were not from the UK? Which is the main bit of irony in that call centre, considering the emotionally charged campaigning coming out of it.
Banks yammers on about a firm Out stance, but then makes full use of the flexible EU jobs market to make up the numbers to make it -- comedy gold!
I kind of understand where you are coming from. But by the same token it seems like you have given up on the locals.
It would be absolutely ridiculous for anyone to claim that for every job position there is a more qualified Brit applying for that job, and I don't think anyone has ever made that claim. The "immigrants taking our jobs" argument isn't one I've seen used in this debate from people who want to leave the EU, not a single time. It's just propaganda from the left to try and make the leave camp look stupid and uneducated, which seems to be their go to position
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Not at all. By using the economic activity we've been discussing, it's possible to build a tide that lifts all boats.
If the government chooses other priorities, it is neither the EU's nor my fault. The electorate did vote them in on a promise of a referendum, largely unspecified cuts and fears over an SNP/Labour coalition (or maybe they thought Liberals would still be around?). The GE is well past us, however.
Still, given the numbers for employment and economic activity as they stand, I'm pretty confident that, even with the recent flare up of soundbite politics, the majority of Brits are competing just fine in the EU, have jobs and the welfare state to fall back on. So, it won't be unreasonable to conclude that what comes out as a very vague anti-EU sentiment is in reality a proxy for other things; which, if you dig far back enough in the EU threads, you will find is quite a multifaceted and varied beast (we've had something to the tune of 'I had a rotten day at work, I vote out' even, lol). Die-hards exist, surely, but they aren't as numerous as they are vocal.
The real problem at the moment, as I see it, is the self-imposed, evidence-free targets we've set for ourselves, and unwillingness to adjust and be honest about them. For example: It's no good saying to the electorate that you'll drop immigration, say by 2/3 in a single parliamentary term, is it; when in fact everything you know is telling you it'll likely take thrice that long to merely halve it, without chancing the economy? What about George's obsession with getting a surplus by the end of this parliament? Really, the correlation in the polls is nearer to what the chancellor does than to what the EU does, presently. Good job it's a cross-party issue, otherwise we would be out already by some margin!
As far as I know the main change is the income requirement. Nothing else is much different to other countries immigration processes, as I pointed out earlier. Those changes have been put in because of the anti immigration lobby, and I doubt they would reduce if the UK left the EU, it's to try and reduce the rate of scam marriages.
I know, read the edit. That does mean that you are happy with the people you are complaining about staying however. being rude/not speaking the language/living in random places (with owners permission) is not illegal and as such we wouldn't be able to chuck them out anyway. If they are doing illegal things then perhaps you should be talking to the police?
They can't magically ignore the fact that they're not allowed to discriminate based on nationality. I know most normal businesses with relatively small employee numbers could get away with it, but I can imagine the press kicking off if they'd only employed Brits/got a story from a European who'd been rejected. They're saying that the current system is wrong, but that doesn't mean they can choose to ignore the law.
Played
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
They can't magically ignore the fact that they're not allowed to discriminate based on nationality. I know most normal businesses with relatively small employee numbers could get away with it, but I can imagine the press kicking off if they'd only employed Brits/got a story from a European who'd been rejected
They would not have broken any law, if they had turned down an EU candidate on the basis of finding someone more experienced or better at the assessment centre, for example. Though it appears the press were quite unaware (same goes for Banks, for that matter) until they were shown around the building by the owner in this instance. Whether a random office worker from Slovakia would know what the referendum was all about, what Banks meant to the Leave camp, and the story one could make of it, is another matter. He would still have needed to prove any deliberate discrimination, on top of any assumed self-serving PR motive, for the press to pick it up. I guess the whole charade was a tad better than hiring an Irish actor for an anti-EU ad, but not by much.
But, moving on, what I also find quite interesting is the red tape the Leave business leaders bring up and want gone, upon closer examination, includes valuable EU-wide worker protections. But the PR message is: 'Don't worry, all shall remain the same; both the jobs and the conditions shall stay in place...' Hmm.
Last edited:
They would not have broken any law, if they had turned down an EU candidate on the basis of finding someone more experienced or better at the assessment centre, for example. Though it appears the press were quite unaware (same goes for Banks, for that matter) until they were shown around the building by the owner in this instance. Whether a random office worker from Slovakia would know what the referendum was all about, what Banks meant to the Leave camp, and the story one could make of it, is another matter. He would still have needed to prove any deliberate discrimination, on top of any assumed self-serving PR motive, for the press to pick it up. I guess the whole charade was a tad better than hiring an Irish actor for an anti-EU ad, but not by much.
But, moving on, what I also find quite interesting is the red tape the Leave business leaders bring up and want gone, upon closer examination, includes valuable EU-wide worker protections. But the PR message is: 'Don't worry, all shall remain the same; both the jobs and the conditions shall stay in place...' Hmm.
Sounds good.
- Status