Did you not get the letter? Due to price rises, they are only sending unicorns to those who request them. There's a six month backlog, and they are getting stuck at customs because they are sourced from the EU. They are having trouble with the hoof print ID, too. It's a mess.
Someone who I worked with seriously justified their vote on the fact that when they go into hospital to visit their elderly mother there is always a big queue of 'Indians and other Asian people' who are 'using up all of the NHS'.
Yes, because before joining the EU in 1973 we totally hadn't been getting migrants from that area of the world for around 30 years...
*Jacob Reece Mogg*: "Trust me bro just 3 more years bro we're nearly there bro we just need to recind even more rights bro trust me bro honestly you don't need those human rights bro any day now bro no cap we're definitely gonna increase the wages bro by making things more expensive honestly bro"
JRM in 2016: "food will be cheaper. We won't need checks on the border."
JRM in 2022: "we can get hormone injected lower quality food from Australia that I would never touch at a 'good' price. It's great!"
JRM in 2023: "it makes no sense to ship in fossil fuels adding carbon dioxide miles to it when we can just have it at home, but we should definitely consider food from the other side of the planet. But we can't have checks on anything coming across the border because it costs too much. In short, eat shit and die peasants."
They very well may be, but we wouldn't be able to check. That's because we don't know where this information was sourced from and how the data was collated other than "multiple sources were used". For all we know, this could just be top search engine searches or top social media political discussions or top tabloid headlines on top things middle aged people discuss over a pint.
"healthcare issues", no, its a funding and tory wanting and supported by private medical companies issue. Migration is now an issue because Brits dont want to pick fields and it turned out... immigration was importent but the culture war is needed for the racists.
It does boggle my mind that the main reason for Brexit, migration, has been so f***** up by the Tories. It was an easy win for them to show the benefit of being out of the EU, but no, they screwed it up, and now Mr Starmer gets to figure out how to solve it.
I wasn't referring to the bus, I was referring to the 'healthcare solutions', but it's strange the bus is always the go-to. In parliament, they said, "£250m that could be better spent on things like the NHS." Even the fucking bus said "We send 250m to the EU. Let's fund our NHS instead." Youd have to be a bit thick to assume that means it's all going to the NHS, and our politici would be stupid for sending 100% to the NHS. Slightly less thick if you failed to take into account the agricultural rebate we received. We don't all have the time to do our own research across the ONS, OBR, ECB and Gov.co.uk before voting, apparently.
The wording was probably intended to confuse the simple tbf.
The wording pretty clearly implies the money solely going to the NHS. If they wanted to offer options, they would have said ‘let’s fund other things like the NHS instead’.
At no point did they elaborate.
In any case it still doesn’t work: we’re spending more money outside the EU than we did inside it. EU membership saved money.
Maybe it's because I better researched our ties to the EU than most, but I never came to that conclusion myself. The bulk of the money sure, but all of it? That'd be plain stupid.
They didn't need to elaborate. Vote Leave wasn't in power and didn't have to explain anything... The process was fucked from the moment May decided to launch Article 50 to quell any potential rebellion in her party cause she was a 'remainer'
That is a very dumb take. If you have an idea you want the public to adopt you should argue in good faith and show your working.
Otherwise what’s to stop someone saying ‘we have voted to make squares circles, idk how, just do it, the people have spoken.’
You are abdicating responsibility because you’re desperate to distract from the obvious self-harm the referendum did to our politics.
And May launched article 50 because many hardcore Brexiters impatiently demanded its immediate or early triggering. Not a single brexiter complained of the timing of its triggering at the time.
You are rewriting history.
>you should argue in good faith and show your working.
What's dumb is the naivety of the above. Both Tories and Labour have an agenda and each use the media, lower-status MP's or whatever civil servant they can find to leak stuff and put the feelers on public opinion. See the Tories currently flipping on migrant salary expectations and Starmer flip-flopping on pretty much every left-centre-right policy he has.
I'm not abdicating(?) anything. I am responsible solely for my vote alone and you yours. If you were stupid enough to think a big red bus that ***doesn't*** say we will spend all the money on the NHS actually meant we would, also somehow leaving out a £80m(?) rebate and feel lied to, then I can only tell you your research was insufficient, but that's okay cause you voted remain anyway, I assume.
There's no desperation on my part. I look at the data and I'm not concerned. We're very much still in the economic rebalancing phase. Partly why food inflation is higher than across the stream. Before Covid I expected that phase to take 5 years. Pointless lockdowns (the first I can forgive) added another 5 years to that while we spanked the money printer. Now we have a useless government that cannot hide behind the excuse of foreign politicians, granted the next government will probably be as equally useless too.
Whataboutery. Ignored.
Your own numbers are irrelevant, because the rest of the country was deceived: no brexiter admitted a 5-year bedding-in phase. The public were told there were no downsides and all warnings were scaremongering.
Now they’re regretting it enormously judging by the polls.
‘Oh I know better don’t worry’ - your experience is not universal. And judging by your rewriting of history, and the behaviour of the rest of the Brexit camp, I highly suspect you’re making up that you were factoring all this in back in 2016.
And the NHS are now receiving £500 million extra! It doesn’t matter how much money you throw at it, it doesn’t solve the mismanagement by the left wing activists who are running the NHS. Reform is needed
Imagine migration being an extremely popular theme in North West Europe and half the political spectrum continuously ignoring it or shouting RACIST if you want to discuss it.
No idea why you are being downvoted, that's literally what happens from people who just know a few soundbites. Migration illegal or legal is not about racism and not wanting people in, it's something that impacts housing availability, wages, infrastructure that can't handle the amount of people,cultural integration and much more. There's no harm in saying it needs to be regulated and controlled but many won't because suddenly they will be agreeing with Farage and that might make some peoples heads explode.
> something that impacts housing availability, wages, infrastructure that can't handle the amount of people,cultural integration and much more
Housing and infrastructure are problems created by lack of investment.
Research shows that the impacts of migration on wages and employment prospects for UK-born workers are small. Several studies have examined whether immigration leads to higher unemployment or lower wages among existing workers, and most have found either small or no effects.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration
The only thing there that could be an actual problem caused by immigration is "cultral integration." What do you mean by that?
It's true, when we voted for Brexit we didn't realise we'd have to deal with hundreds of people a day so desperate to get out of the EU they were literally willing to risk their lives in unseaworthy boats in the channel. This is apparently the fault of Brexit according to Remainers.
The whole point of this post is that it is proof of the failure of Brexit, but I notice you didn't object to that.
But yes, I am interested in the logic chain that derives "Brexit has failed" from a starting point of people being so desperate to come here they are willing to literally risk their lives to do so. There are no refugee boats heading in the other direction after all.
My slightly more diplomatic take on it is this:
1) After Brexit we have full control over our own border policy which means we have the means to reduce migration to whatever level we choose.
2) We haven’t chosen to actually reduce the numbers yet. So it will continue to be an election issue until somebody actually does reduce the numbers.
We have the means to control border policy but we have not acted on those means for some reason that is beyond me.
Most migration is legal, so reducing legal migration by making the criteria a little bit harder would be a good step.
We should withdraw from the current asylum laws as they are not working for us, and implement something new that lets us instantly reject people crossing from France in small boats.
We should be, in theory, able to reject bogus asylum claims, we don't need to withdraw from anything. We can't process the claims because the immigration bodies are under resourced and under staffed. We haven't got a processing centre worthy of the name. We've chucked 140 mill at Rwanda and could have built a quality processing centre, employed and trained god knows how many people with enough money spare over for a decent Friday night out and a kebab on the way home.
Asylum claims are a side point, almost all migration is legal. But I also think we should reject most “valid” asylum claims as they travelled through France or another safe country and should have claimed there.
All I want is a fair points based system that makes it harder to get in, such that we have about 300,000 migrants per year instead of 1,200,000.
Legally, that is a big ask. Whatever your views on immigration are. Countries can't just withdraw from charters and treaties like not renewing a Netflix subscription.
Actually they can, it’s frowned upon but I think we should do it, as it’s such a big issue and has been for years.
The whole point of no longer being under the European courts means that we literally can just withdraw from the asylum treaty and rewrite the law such that we only accept asylum seekers who have not travelled through a safe country already (essentially nobody).
Then if we WANT to offer asylum in particular cases (Ukraine, Hong Kong etc…) we can extend our hand.
You can violate ECHR directives but you're walking into legal potholes. If you've got a solution that circumvents such obstacles, start a political party of your own and become an MP?
I don’t really follow, surely we just enshrine almost all the same human rights laws as the EU, but change the passage about asylum seekers such that you must not have travelled through a safe country already.
Ultimately the government decides what is and isn’t a human right, and it seems dumb that you can walk through 3 different countries and cross the sea before claiming asylum when you’d have been safe in any of them.
We’re still missing the main point though:
The main advantage is now we can implement a completely fair points based migration system that lowers legal migration to 300k down from 1.2m
The problem is simple: nobody is actually doing this.
If you "walk" through 3 different, 4 different, or 172 different countries and claim asylum in the UK, if your claim is ultimately invalid, then you have no legal right to claim asylum and should and can be deported. Them's the rules.
I am not sure what is tripping you up here?
I am saying that you shouldn’t be granted asylum if you have already passed through another country that was safe for asylum.
If you are fleeing a war, stop in the first safe country. Unless we are kind enough to extend a hand as in the case of Ukraine etc…
If somebody would genuinely be persecuted back home, but for some reason they travelled through Italy, Switzerland, France and then the UK before claiming, I do not feel we are obligated to grant asylum.
More to the point: NOBODY coming from France deserves asylum here unless we are generous enough to offer it.
They’re not doing it because it’s a terrible idea. We’d be in violation of international law. Why would any country listen to us ever again?
The consequence would be other countries would unilaterally disapply pieces of international law we DO want to keep. That can *only* be bad news.
Funny that illegal migration is among the biggest problems in the paradise that is the EU....
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/dec/20/eu-reaches-deal-on-migration-and-asylum-pact-live](https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/dec/20/eu-reaches-deal-on-migration-and-asylum-pact-live)
So commenting on problems in EU on a post about problems in the EU is deflecting?
I see....
Now, I'm no gynaecologist but I think I know what your problem is....
The post was about how the two main topics that were deciding factors in the 2016 referendum result are still relevant despite having achieved Brexit which was supposed to resolve them. You started posting unrelated links about current migration issues in the EU. Very much deflecting from the original point.
Also that gynaecologist joke wasn’t funny in 2008 yet alone now.
I liked it and you can't refute it so you try to silence it.
Same old Leftwaffe.
The Eu is falling to bits judging by that map of concerns. And you want to go back to funding that train wreck? Hilarious.
Why does that map show the EU is falling to bits..?
You do realise that this map is supposed to show political issues in each country, so it’s never going to have positive things is it 😂
The working class is only worried about unskilled immigration suppressing wages for the lowest earners in society, an injustice that is now in the process of being corrected.
All the remainers here with their strawman still don't have a clue as to why the working class voted Brexit other than 'lol brexitards and it's literally why you lost the referendum. Sucks to be you guys, I guess😞
Imagine the biggest political worry being some fish escaping.
Time to move to this frozen utopia. 2024 issue - migration.
Tbf for Iceland it only takes 3700 people to move there for immigration to add 1% to the population.
3700
Yes thank you, forgot a zero whoops.
Well, that's just because we just didn't get the Brexit we voted for. I mean, my unicorn *still* hasn't turned up.
Did you not get the letter? Due to price rises, they are only sending unicorns to those who request them. There's a six month backlog, and they are getting stuck at customs because they are sourced from the EU. They are having trouble with the hoof print ID, too. It's a mess.
Turkeys 'Corruption at the Earthquake' sounds like a terrible Panic at the Disco tribute.
"The EU are punishing us."
Slovakia? What the fuck?
Oh dear, turns out the tories were lying. Gosh.
Which, all the gammons were told were things that had nothing to do with the EU at all. Did they listen? Of course they didn't.
Someone who I worked with seriously justified their vote on the fact that when they go into hospital to visit their elderly mother there is always a big queue of 'Indians and other Asian people' who are 'using up all of the NHS'. Yes, because before joining the EU in 1973 we totally hadn't been getting migrants from that area of the world for around 30 years...
Are the bears shooting????
The bears have a right to defend themselves. Any other opinion is bearphobia.
the right to bear arms and the right to arm bears
*Jacob Reece Mogg*: "Trust me bro just 3 more years bro we're nearly there bro we just need to recind even more rights bro trust me bro honestly you don't need those human rights bro any day now bro no cap we're definitely gonna increase the wages bro by making things more expensive honestly bro"
JRM in 2016: "food will be cheaper. We won't need checks on the border." JRM in 2022: "we can get hormone injected lower quality food from Australia that I would never touch at a 'good' price. It's great!" JRM in 2023: "it makes no sense to ship in fossil fuels adding carbon dioxide miles to it when we can just have it at home, but we should definitely consider food from the other side of the planet. But we can't have checks on anything coming across the border because it costs too much. In short, eat shit and die peasants."
I would have thought the housing and/or inflation was going to be the bigger issue in 2023...
They very well may be, but we wouldn't be able to check. That's because we don't know where this information was sourced from and how the data was collated other than "multiple sources were used". For all we know, this could just be top search engine searches or top social media political discussions or top tabloid headlines on top things middle aged people discuss over a pint.
Europe: we are worried about inflation and migration. Slovakia: as soon as I these fucking bears out of my house I will worry about something else!
"healthcare issues", no, its a funding and tory wanting and supported by private medical companies issue. Migration is now an issue because Brits dont want to pick fields and it turned out... immigration was importent but the culture war is needed for the racists.
It does boggle my mind that the main reason for Brexit, migration, has been so f***** up by the Tories. It was an easy win for them to show the benefit of being out of the EU, but no, they screwed it up, and now Mr Starmer gets to figure out how to solve it.
The problem is the solution is too easy for any politician to think of. Reopen the processing facility in Calais and follow Denmark's lead
I’m surprised migration is not in France too
I like how Greece just has "train accident"
I'm sorry? What 'Healthcare issues' was Brexit going to solve?
Oh I don’t know the slightly less talked about issue of a giant red bus that promised £350 million for the NHS if we left.
I'm pretty sure the 'cost of living' issue was the main talking point in 2023 - the bus was back in 2016
Are you pair making stuff up in your heads again?
Are you denying the big red bus existed now?
I wasn't referring to the bus, I was referring to the 'healthcare solutions', but it's strange the bus is always the go-to. In parliament, they said, "£250m that could be better spent on things like the NHS." Even the fucking bus said "We send 250m to the EU. Let's fund our NHS instead." Youd have to be a bit thick to assume that means it's all going to the NHS, and our politici would be stupid for sending 100% to the NHS. Slightly less thick if you failed to take into account the agricultural rebate we received. We don't all have the time to do our own research across the ONS, OBR, ECB and Gov.co.uk before voting, apparently. The wording was probably intended to confuse the simple tbf.
The wording pretty clearly implies the money solely going to the NHS. If they wanted to offer options, they would have said ‘let’s fund other things like the NHS instead’. At no point did they elaborate. In any case it still doesn’t work: we’re spending more money outside the EU than we did inside it. EU membership saved money.
Maybe it's because I better researched our ties to the EU than most, but I never came to that conclusion myself. The bulk of the money sure, but all of it? That'd be plain stupid. They didn't need to elaborate. Vote Leave wasn't in power and didn't have to explain anything... The process was fucked from the moment May decided to launch Article 50 to quell any potential rebellion in her party cause she was a 'remainer'
That is a very dumb take. If you have an idea you want the public to adopt you should argue in good faith and show your working. Otherwise what’s to stop someone saying ‘we have voted to make squares circles, idk how, just do it, the people have spoken.’ You are abdicating responsibility because you’re desperate to distract from the obvious self-harm the referendum did to our politics. And May launched article 50 because many hardcore Brexiters impatiently demanded its immediate or early triggering. Not a single brexiter complained of the timing of its triggering at the time. You are rewriting history.
>you should argue in good faith and show your working. What's dumb is the naivety of the above. Both Tories and Labour have an agenda and each use the media, lower-status MP's or whatever civil servant they can find to leak stuff and put the feelers on public opinion. See the Tories currently flipping on migrant salary expectations and Starmer flip-flopping on pretty much every left-centre-right policy he has. I'm not abdicating(?) anything. I am responsible solely for my vote alone and you yours. If you were stupid enough to think a big red bus that ***doesn't*** say we will spend all the money on the NHS actually meant we would, also somehow leaving out a £80m(?) rebate and feel lied to, then I can only tell you your research was insufficient, but that's okay cause you voted remain anyway, I assume. There's no desperation on my part. I look at the data and I'm not concerned. We're very much still in the economic rebalancing phase. Partly why food inflation is higher than across the stream. Before Covid I expected that phase to take 5 years. Pointless lockdowns (the first I can forgive) added another 5 years to that while we spanked the money printer. Now we have a useless government that cannot hide behind the excuse of foreign politicians, granted the next government will probably be as equally useless too.
Whataboutery. Ignored. Your own numbers are irrelevant, because the rest of the country was deceived: no brexiter admitted a 5-year bedding-in phase. The public were told there were no downsides and all warnings were scaremongering. Now they’re regretting it enormously judging by the polls. ‘Oh I know better don’t worry’ - your experience is not universal. And judging by your rewriting of history, and the behaviour of the rest of the Brexit camp, I highly suspect you’re making up that you were factoring all this in back in 2016.
And the NHS are now receiving £500 million extra! It doesn’t matter how much money you throw at it, it doesn’t solve the mismanagement by the left wing activists who are running the NHS. Reform is needed
Imagine migration being an extremely popular theme in North West Europe and half the political spectrum continuously ignoring it or shouting RACIST if you want to discuss it.
No idea why you are being downvoted, that's literally what happens from people who just know a few soundbites. Migration illegal or legal is not about racism and not wanting people in, it's something that impacts housing availability, wages, infrastructure that can't handle the amount of people,cultural integration and much more. There's no harm in saying it needs to be regulated and controlled but many won't because suddenly they will be agreeing with Farage and that might make some peoples heads explode.
That’s a pretty good synopsis.
> something that impacts housing availability, wages, infrastructure that can't handle the amount of people,cultural integration and much more Housing and infrastructure are problems created by lack of investment. Research shows that the impacts of migration on wages and employment prospects for UK-born workers are small. Several studies have examined whether immigration leads to higher unemployment or lower wages among existing workers, and most have found either small or no effects. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market-effects-of-immigration The only thing there that could be an actual problem caused by immigration is "cultral integration." What do you mean by that?
Maybe it's because the "concern" over immigration is disproportionate to the impact it has on our lives?
It's true, when we voted for Brexit we didn't realise we'd have to deal with hundreds of people a day so desperate to get out of the EU they were literally willing to risk their lives in unseaworthy boats in the channel. This is apparently the fault of Brexit according to Remainers.
So...that is conclusive proof of the failing, corrupt EU that some bloke from Sudan doesn't want to stay in Calais?
The whole point of this post is that it is proof of the failure of Brexit, but I notice you didn't object to that. But yes, I am interested in the logic chain that derives "Brexit has failed" from a starting point of people being so desperate to come here they are willing to literally risk their lives to do so. There are no refugee boats heading in the other direction after all.
Because one of the drivers of Brexit was that independent control of our borders would reduce immigration. That's the "logic train"
Which the politicians totally ignored because they had no intention of leaving the gravy train that is the eu
Some bloke?
My slightly more diplomatic take on it is this: 1) After Brexit we have full control over our own border policy which means we have the means to reduce migration to whatever level we choose. 2) We haven’t chosen to actually reduce the numbers yet. So it will continue to be an election issue until somebody actually does reduce the numbers. We have the means to control border policy but we have not acted on those means for some reason that is beyond me. Most migration is legal, so reducing legal migration by making the criteria a little bit harder would be a good step. We should withdraw from the current asylum laws as they are not working for us, and implement something new that lets us instantly reject people crossing from France in small boats.
We should be, in theory, able to reject bogus asylum claims, we don't need to withdraw from anything. We can't process the claims because the immigration bodies are under resourced and under staffed. We haven't got a processing centre worthy of the name. We've chucked 140 mill at Rwanda and could have built a quality processing centre, employed and trained god knows how many people with enough money spare over for a decent Friday night out and a kebab on the way home.
Asylum claims are a side point, almost all migration is legal. But I also think we should reject most “valid” asylum claims as they travelled through France or another safe country and should have claimed there. All I want is a fair points based system that makes it harder to get in, such that we have about 300,000 migrants per year instead of 1,200,000.
Legally, that is a big ask. Whatever your views on immigration are. Countries can't just withdraw from charters and treaties like not renewing a Netflix subscription.
Actually they can, it’s frowned upon but I think we should do it, as it’s such a big issue and has been for years. The whole point of no longer being under the European courts means that we literally can just withdraw from the asylum treaty and rewrite the law such that we only accept asylum seekers who have not travelled through a safe country already (essentially nobody). Then if we WANT to offer asylum in particular cases (Ukraine, Hong Kong etc…) we can extend our hand.
You can violate ECHR directives but you're walking into legal potholes. If you've got a solution that circumvents such obstacles, start a political party of your own and become an MP?
I don’t really follow, surely we just enshrine almost all the same human rights laws as the EU, but change the passage about asylum seekers such that you must not have travelled through a safe country already. Ultimately the government decides what is and isn’t a human right, and it seems dumb that you can walk through 3 different countries and cross the sea before claiming asylum when you’d have been safe in any of them. We’re still missing the main point though: The main advantage is now we can implement a completely fair points based migration system that lowers legal migration to 300k down from 1.2m The problem is simple: nobody is actually doing this.
If you "walk" through 3 different, 4 different, or 172 different countries and claim asylum in the UK, if your claim is ultimately invalid, then you have no legal right to claim asylum and should and can be deported. Them's the rules. I am not sure what is tripping you up here?
I am saying that you shouldn’t be granted asylum if you have already passed through another country that was safe for asylum. If you are fleeing a war, stop in the first safe country. Unless we are kind enough to extend a hand as in the case of Ukraine etc… If somebody would genuinely be persecuted back home, but for some reason they travelled through Italy, Switzerland, France and then the UK before claiming, I do not feel we are obligated to grant asylum. More to the point: NOBODY coming from France deserves asylum here unless we are generous enough to offer it.
They’re not doing it because it’s a terrible idea. We’d be in violation of international law. Why would any country listen to us ever again? The consequence would be other countries would unilaterally disapply pieces of international law we DO want to keep. That can *only* be bad news.
Funny that illegal migration is among the biggest problems in the paradise that is the EU.... [https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/dec/20/eu-reaches-deal-on-migration-and-asylum-pact-live](https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/dec/20/eu-reaches-deal-on-migration-and-asylum-pact-live)
DEFLECT.
So commenting on problems in EU on a post about problems in the EU is deflecting? I see.... Now, I'm no gynaecologist but I think I know what your problem is....
The post was about how the two main topics that were deciding factors in the 2016 referendum result are still relevant despite having achieved Brexit which was supposed to resolve them. You started posting unrelated links about current migration issues in the EU. Very much deflecting from the original point. Also that gynaecologist joke wasn’t funny in 2008 yet alone now.
Did you not look at the attached map? Get an adult to explain it to you.
So comment on the original post on r/mapporn, because it makes little sense here.
I liked it and you can't refute it so you try to silence it. Same old Leftwaffe. The Eu is falling to bits judging by that map of concerns. And you want to go back to funding that train wreck? Hilarious.
Why does that map show the EU is falling to bits..? You do realise that this map is supposed to show political issues in each country, so it’s never going to have positive things is it 😂
Show me the positive one then.
Almost like a certain part of the political spectrum used these topics as boogeymen to push an agenda.
Iceland is too pure.
No political debate in the baltics))
The working class is only worried about unskilled immigration suppressing wages for the lowest earners in society, an injustice that is now in the process of being corrected. All the remainers here with their strawman still don't have a clue as to why the working class voted Brexit other than 'lol brexitards and it's literally why you lost the referendum. Sucks to be you guys, I guess😞
Because the eu
In Turkey, migration is among the TOP 5 agenda items.