Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
If this was the case previously , my family wouldn't have existed in the UK. On the plus side I would have moved to France 30 years earlier.
Other plusses - I can never return to the UK to live with my wife - excellent, best news of all.
Other possible plusses if implemented earlier - Patel and Braverman wouldn't exist.
Stop teasing us Paul, you know you would never come back!
No but if I wanted to I couldn't, there are others who may want to come back.
So you think it's fine that British people can't live in their own country?
Didn't know they could be stopped, unless they had revoked/changed their nationality/passport.
With their partner who didn't satisfy the earnings level. That's the point of the story.
From what I've read it's just getting on a preferred supplier list which is really nothing. They still have to bid on any contract against oh the likes of Fujitsu. If they started winning contracts with subpar bids, then I'd be concerned.
If it were a private company with such a conflict of interest they'd be scrutinised heavily under the bribery act. Same standards don't seem to apply to government from what I can tell.
Ever heard the VIP Lane? Most bids that came through it were sub-par.
Mate, if you were proper British, you'd dump the foreigner and move back to Blighty so you can snaffle up an English Rose
Rather be single.
The foreigner also spent the majority of her life in the UK but can't live there any more. Brexit bonus!
You are so naive.
He’s not naive, he’s disingenuous because he’s a right winger that has to excuse everything a right wing government does because he hates that this predominantly left wing forum have absolutely no end in opportunities to criticise them.
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?
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;
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.
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!
He's such a vile individual which says something coming after Johnson. Tories will go into the gutter to fight for this election.
Huge celebrations announced in Spelthorne.
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.