Brian Kirby Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 Much is made of the supposed fact that immigration was a significant driver of Brexit. The government's defence for admitting so many migrants has long been that they were compelled to do so under the EU's "free movement of people" regulations. I have long said that this is not so. This link https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhaff/857/857.pdf leads to the July 2018 Interim Report to parliament by the Home Affairs Select Committee. Download a copy and read it - especially Chapter 3: Existing applicable controls, commencing on page 15. It would also be instructive to follow the link at the foot of that page to the blogpost by Bruegel, which quotes dates and figures, and sets out in more detail how the existing regulations could have been used, quite legally, to reduce the numbers entering (or, if judged preferable, control how many were admitted over what period/s of time). At the every least, this should make you a little cautious about who it was, in fact, who made these levels of immigration possible, and who it was who actually had the power to reduce the numbers. Interesting reading! Remember that these are the direct findings of a cross-party UK Parliamentary Select Committee (so not media "edited"), into the background to past immigration from the EU, and to propose better ways to manage this in future. It will become clear from the timescales that this is not a party-political issue (as should become evident from the membership of the committee), as both main parties were in government over the period concerned. I find it strange that this report has not gained greater publicity, and wonder why that might be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM I find it strange that this report has not gained greater publicity, and wonder why that might be? A) Politicians are unlikely to admit their mistakes ? ( ...and it's a bit late now to publish it ) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowie Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 Only read pgs 15-17, but certainly suggests that we might have followed Belgium’s lead. I wonder if registration, of UK nationals as well as EU citizens might be a step too far for libertarian governments. I’ve never seen any problems with this. Presumably this can all be taken into account during the negotiations that might start in the new year Snowie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 17, 2018 Author Share Posted December 17, 2018 Any future arrangements will, of course, have to be negotiated. However, what struck me most forcibly was the information given in the linked Bruegel and EU Law Analysis items (linked at the foot of page 15 under refs 44 and 45). I assume that both being linked in the committee report means they are considered reliable sources. Both seem to me to say, quite unequivocally, that governments had been making false claims as to the nature of our EU free movement obligations. Since the referendum result was (and still is!) so widely blamed on migration, with many citing EU migration in particular, the implication is that the government actively encouraged people to believe that the reason for EU migration was EU law, while it was more accurately the failure of those governments to apply the EU laws. In short, that Brexit was born of government obfuscation and, it has to be said, lies, regarding its immigration obligations under EU legislation - let alone handing UKIP carte blanche justification for their bare-faced lie about Turkish migration. If government had come clean, we may simply have had an election to clear away the offending party, rather than a referendum with an outcome based on misinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 snowie - 2018-12-17 12:08 PM Only read pgs 15-17, but certainly suggests that we might have followed Belgium’s lead. I wonder if registration, of UK nationals as well as EU citizens might be a step too far for libertarian governments. I’ve never seen any problems with this. Presumably this can all be taken into account during the negotiations that might start in the new year Snowie Not quite the same but similar, if you remember the ID car scheme being suggested which brought howls of protest from the public of "state monitoring" so that got dropped. Not sure why folk reacted that way as we are the most surveilled state in the west anyway so a card wouldn't have mattered that much! It certainly would have been easier than carrying a passport when out of UK and ID cards are all that EU citizens need to travel in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowie Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 I’m not a big fan of taking on trade arrangements that have been devised by/for other countries, and Norway+ has usually been rejected on the basis of free movement of people. I’ve always thought that movement to a job, rather than in search of a job made more sense, and I consider myself to be pretty liberal. I think we would not be alone in implementing controls. Snowie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 3:50 PM Any future arrangements will, of course, have to be negotiated. However, what struck me most forcibly was the information given in the linked Bruegel and EU Law Analysis items (linked at the foot of page 15 under refs 44 and 45). I assume that both being linked in the committee report means they are considered reliable sources. Both seem to me to say, quite unequivocally, that governments had been making false claims as to the nature of our EU free movement obligations. Since the referendum result was (and still is!) so widely blamed on migration, with many citing EU migration in particular, the implication is that the government actively encouraged people to believe that the reason for EU migration was EU law, while it was more accurately the failure of those governments to apply the EU laws. In short, that Brexit was born of government obfuscation and, it has to be said, lies, regarding its immigration obligations under EU legislation - let alone handing UKIP carte blanche justification for their bare-faced lie about Turkish migration. If government had come clean, we may simply have had an election to clear away the offending party, rather than a referendum with an outcome based on misinformation. I like to think this (bib) has become common knowledge to all now Brian, irrespective of which way they voted. After all Dominic Cummings openly admitted immigration was a tactical ploy to persuade people to vote leave.....to 'stop' immigration, and folk took the bait! It was how it was presented. The same tactics wouldn't have worked had they sold it on the fact non-EU net migration would increase above and beyond that of the same from EU. People are aware of much more facts now as the fictional stuff has been shredded and debunked. The referendum vote came off the back of packs of lies, misinformation and impossible 'promises'. That's an intentional subversion of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 17, 2018 Author Share Posted December 17, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-12-17 5:07 PM.....................…………... After all Dominic Cummings openly admitted immigration was a tactical ploy to persuade people to vote leave.....to 'stop' immigration, and folk took the bait! It was how it was presented. …………... But Paul, Cummings was the director of Vote Leave, was not a minister or an MP so, in effect, he could lie his head off in support of his cause. What really galls me about the Home Affairs Committee report, in conjunction with the two linked independent reports I referred to, is that it basically says successive governments have been wrongly blaming EU rules for increasing levels of EU migration to UK since 2007! It is just not feasible that government didn't know that this was a fiction. It must have been pointed out to them that it was wrong. This covers Gordon Brown and David Cameron (twice, once Coalition, once Conservative) and Nick Clegg, and they all, including their administrations, buried the truth. Why? Easier to blame the EU for what was palpably unpopular, than to front up to it being a policy that both parties had adopted for economic reasons - which appears to be the truth? So, how much else has been buried in like fashion? I can understand that "journals" such as the Daily Mail deliberately and selectively print untruths, but the British Government? Aren't we supposed to take what we are told by them as bearing at least a passing resemblance to truth? If immigration from the EU (mainly from the old "Eastern Bloc" countries) is really what explained the referendum result, then the only reason we are now in this mess is government lies. When governments are caught lying, who does one believe? Who would one vote for? What happens to democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-12-17 5:07 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 3:50 PM Any future arrangements will, of course, have to be negotiated. However, what struck me most forcibly was the information given in the linked Bruegel and EU Law Analysis items (linked at the foot of page 15 under refs 44 and 45). I assume that both being linked in the committee report means they are considered reliable sources. Both seem to me to say, quite unequivocally, that governments had been making false claims as to the nature of our EU free movement obligations. Since the referendum result was (and still is!) so widely blamed on migration, with many citing EU migration in particular, the implication is that the government actively encouraged people to believe that the reason for EU migration was EU law, while it was more accurately the failure of those governments to apply the EU laws. In short, that Brexit was born of government obfuscation and, it has to be said, lies, regarding its immigration obligations under EU legislation - let alone handing UKIP carte blanche justification for their bare-faced lie about Turkish migration. If government had come clean, we may simply have had an election to clear away the offending party, rather than a referendum with an outcome based on misinformation. I like to think this (bib) has become common knowledge to all now Brian, irrespective of which way they voted. After all Dominic Cummings openly admitted immigration was a tactical ploy to persuade people to vote leave.....to 'stop' immigration, and folk took the bait! It was how it was presented. The same tactics wouldn't have worked had they sold it on the fact non-EU net migration would increase above and beyond that of the same from EU. People are aware of much more facts now as the fictional stuff has been shredded and debunked. The referendum vote came off the back of packs of lies, misinformation and impossible 'promises'. That's an intentional subversion of democracy. Last paragraph describes what happens every general or local election ... We've put up with that for years so what's new all of a sudden ... Oh yeah that's right you lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 6:20 PM Bulletguy - 2018-12-17 5:07 PM.....................…………... After all Dominic Cummings openly admitted immigration was a tactical ploy to persuade people to vote leave.....to 'stop' immigration, and folk took the bait! It was how it was presented. …………... But Paul, Cummings was the director of Vote Leave, was not a minister or an MP so, in effect, he could lie his head off in support of his cause. What really galls me about the Home Affairs Committee report, in conjunction with the two linked independent reports I referred to, is that it basically says successive governments have been wrongly blaming EU rules for increasing levels of EU migration to UK since 2007! It is just not feasible that government didn't know that this was a fiction. It must have been pointed out to them that it was wrong. This covers Gordon Brown and David Cameron (twice, once Coalition, once Conservative) and Nick Clegg, and they all, including their administrations, buried the truth. Why? Easier to blame the EU for what was palpably unpopular, than to front up to it being a policy that both parties had adopted for economic reasons - which appears to be the truth? So, how much else has been buried in like fashion? I can understand that "journals" such as the Daily Mail deliberately and selectively print untruths, but the British Government? Aren't we supposed to take what we are told by them as bearing at least a passing resemblance to truth? If immigration from the EU (mainly from the old "Eastern Bloc" countries) is really what explained the referendum result, then the only reason we are now in this mess is government lies. When governments are caught lying, who does one believe? Who would one vote for? What happens to democracy? Yes i realise that but look at the politicians who bought into knowing those same myths were being peddled. Gove, Johnson, Farage et al.....all were more than happy to go along with using migration (as just one thing) to blame on the EU as that suited their narrative. If the UK ever does exit from EU.....exactly who are those so desperate for their Brexit at any cost going to blame their woes on then? They can't blame the EU and people from EU who were working here have already packed up and left. Why stay in a country which hates you? How the non-EU migrants now coming in will fare remains to be seen, but it's a good job they are coming because who else is going to do the work? I remember reading on another forum pre-referendum, a thread started by some xenophobe about 'migrants are "stealing" our jobs'. "Our" jobs?? "Stealing"?? Seriously!! Well one poster soon had an answer to that......"migrants have been doing an excellent job of 'stealing' my nephews job as the bone idle lazy sod has never done a days work in his life since leaving school 15 years ago and has no intention of getting one either". As i said previously i'd like to believe the lies, myths, misinformation etc have been exposed now for what they are and there are two solutions, revoke Art 50 and remain as is still legally possible (ECJ have ruled), or go to a Peoples vote.....neither of which of course will appeal to Brexiteers as they don't want the EU, even though May's 'deal' is effectively giving them that(!!), and they fear a Peoples vote as they know Brexit would be toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-12-17 6:20 PM Bulletguy - 2018-12-17 5:07 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 3:50 PM Any future arrangements will, of course, have to be negotiated. However, what struck me most forcibly was the information given in the linked Bruegel and EU Law Analysis items (linked at the foot of page 15 under refs 44 and 45). I assume that both being linked in the committee report means they are considered reliable sources. Both seem to me to say, quite unequivocally, that governments had been making false claims as to the nature of our EU free movement obligations. Since the referendum result was (and still is!) so widely blamed on migration, with many citing EU migration in particular, the implication is that the government actively encouraged people to believe that the reason for EU migration was EU law, while it was more accurately the failure of those governments to apply the EU laws. In short, that Brexit was born of government obfuscation and, it has to be said, lies, regarding its immigration obligations under EU legislation - let alone handing UKIP carte blanche justification for their bare-faced lie about Turkish migration. If government had come clean, we may simply have had an election to clear away the offending party, rather than a referendum with an outcome based on misinformation. I like to think this (bib) has become common knowledge to all now Brian, irrespective of which way they voted. After all Dominic Cummings openly admitted immigration was a tactical ploy to persuade people to vote leave.....to 'stop' immigration, and folk took the bait! It was how it was presented. The same tactics wouldn't have worked had they sold it on the fact non-EU net migration would increase above and beyond that of the same from EU. People are aware of much more facts now as the fictional stuff has been shredded and debunked. The referendum vote came off the back of packs of lies, misinformation and impossible 'promises'. That's an intentional subversion of democracy. Last paragraph describes what happens every general or local election ... We've put up with that for years so what's new all of a sudden ... Oh yeah that's right you lost Been explained many times before.....elections are once every five years and you can change a government, the referendum is a life time decision which would become irreversible unless the madness is revoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowie Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 I would not be at all surprised if a majority of mps really are not aware of the possibilities that the report brings to light. It would be shocking, but not at all a surprised. Maybe we should email or mps asking them for an assurance that they are up to speed on this. Snowie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-12-17 8:45 PM antony1969 - 2018-12-17 6:20 PM Bulletguy - 2018-12-17 5:07 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 3:50 PM Any future arrangements will, of course, have to be negotiated. However, what struck me most forcibly was the information given in the linked Bruegel and EU Law Analysis items (linked at the foot of page 15 under refs 44 and 45). I assume that both being linked in the committee report means they are considered reliable sources. Both seem to me to say, quite unequivocally, that governments had been making false claims as to the nature of our EU free movement obligations. Since the referendum result was (and still is!) so widely blamed on migration, with many citing EU migration in particular, the implication is that the government actively encouraged people to believe that the reason for EU migration was EU law, while it was more accurately the failure of those governments to apply the EU laws. In short, that Brexit was born of government obfuscation and, it has to be said, lies, regarding its immigration obligations under EU legislation - let alone handing UKIP carte blanche justification for their bare-faced lie about Turkish migration. If government had come clean, we may simply have had an election to clear away the offending party, rather than a referendum with an outcome based on misinformation. I like to think this (bib) has become common knowledge to all now Brian, irrespective of which way they voted. After all Dominic Cummings openly admitted immigration was a tactical ploy to persuade people to vote leave.....to 'stop' immigration, and folk took the bait! It was how it was presented. The same tactics wouldn't have worked had they sold it on the fact non-EU net migration would increase above and beyond that of the same from EU. People are aware of much more facts now as the fictional stuff has been shredded and debunked. The referendum vote came off the back of packs of lies, misinformation and impossible 'promises'. That's an intentional subversion of democracy. Last paragraph describes what happens every general or local election ... We've put up with that for years so what's new all of a sudden ... Oh yeah that's right you lost Been explained many times before.....elections are once every five years and you can change a government, the referendum is a life time decision which would become irreversible unless the madness is revoked. Referendums as explained on here previously by Brian I believe could be whenever the mood of the country changes ... We of course had to wait 40 years for our chance to halt the madness and lies from the first one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM Much is made of the supposed fact that immigration was a significant driver of Brexit. The government's defence for admitting so many migrants has long been that they were compelled to do so under the EU's "free movement of people" regulations. I have long said that this is not so. This link https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhaff/857/857.pdf leads to the July 2018 Interim Report to parliament by the Home Affairs Select Committee. Download a copy and read it - especially Chapter 3: Existing applicable controls, commencing on page 15. It would also be instructive to follow the link at the foot of that page to the blogpost by Bruegel, which quotes dates and figures, and sets out in more detail how the existing regulations could have been used, quite legally, to reduce the numbers entering (or, if judged preferable, control how many were admitted over what period/s of time). At the every least, this should make you a little cautious about who it was, in fact, who made these levels of immigration possible, and who it was who actually had the power to reduce the numbers. Interesting reading! Remember that these are the direct findings of a cross-party UK Parliamentary Select Committee (so not media "edited"), into the background to past immigration from the EU, and to propose better ways to manage this in future. It will become clear from the timescales that this is not a party-political issue (as should become evident from the membership of the committee), as both main parties were in government over the period concerned. I find it strange that this report has not gained greater publicity, and wonder why that might be? Oi Kirby! 8-) .......... This is cheating *-) ............ You started your 100 day Remoaner Propaganda Blitzkrieg 2 days early :D ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM It would also be instructive to follow the link at the foot of that page to the blogpost by Bruegel, Bruegel is the European think tank that specialises in economics. ;-) .......... So no EU bias there eh Brian? >:-) .......... BTW seeing as they specialise in "Economics".........why are they giving input to our government about our immigration policies? *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM Much is made of the supposed fact that immigration was a significant driver of Brexit. The government's defence for admitting so many migrants has long been that they were compelled to do so under the EU's "free movement of people" regulations. I have long said that this is not so. So why did the EU stop us from deporting this lot? *-) ........... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/eu-rules-stopped-britain-deporting-murders-rapists-and-violent-c/ "Mr Raab has compiled a dossier of the 50 most serious offenders who have been allowed to remain in the UK because of Brussels red tape. As justice minister, Mr Raab has had first-hand experience of many of the cases the UK has seen thwarted." Is Mr Raab is deliberately misleading us with his first hand experience? >:-) .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 18, 2018 Author Share Posted December 18, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-12-18 8:43 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM Much is made of the supposed fact that immigration was a significant driver of Brexit. The government's defence for admitting so many migrants has long been that they were compelled to do so under the EU's "free movement of people" regulations. I have long said that this is not so. So why did the EU stop us from deporting this lot? *-) ........... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/eu-rules-stopped-britain-deporting-murders-rapists-and-violent-c/ "Mr Raab has compiled a dossier of the 50 most serious offenders who have been allowed to remain in the UK because of Brussels red tape. As justice minister, Mr Raab has had first-hand experience of many of the cases the UK has seen thwarted." Is Mr Raab is deliberately misleading us with his first hand experience? >:-) .............. Suggest you look up immigration and deportation. You will find they are two totally different things. An absence of one does not indicate an absence of the other. Your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 18, 2018 Author Share Posted December 18, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-12-18 8:35 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM It would also be instructive to follow the link at the foot of that page to the blogpost by Bruegel, Bruegel is the European think tank that specialises in economics. ;-) .......... So no EU bias there eh Brian? >:-) .......... BTW seeing as they specialise in "Economics".........why are they giving input to our government about our immigration policies? *-) .......... If you would read, instead of pointlessly blathering, you would know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 18, 2018 Author Share Posted December 18, 2018 antony1969 - 2018-12-17 6:20 PM...…………. Last paragraph describes what happens every general or local election ... We've put up with that for years so what's new all of a sudden …………. What's new? 1 This was not a general election, it was a cross-party Parliamentary Select Committee enquiry into ways to manage EU migration. 2 Its findings do not relate to general elections, but to government statements made since 2007 justifying the large numbers of EU migrants that had been allowed to enter the UK, in which they repeatedly claimed EU legislation required them to do so. 3 Those claims were, and are false. They could, legally, have reduced the numbers by about 80%, had they chosen to do so. Your governments have been lying to you - and you think that is OK, on the basis that they lie to you anyway? That is truly (to use one of your favourite words) shocking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-12-18 9:49 AM pelmetman - 2018-12-18 8:43 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM Much is made of the supposed fact that immigration was a significant driver of Brexit. The government's defence for admitting so many migrants has long been that they were compelled to do so under the EU's "free movement of people" regulations. I have long said that this is not so. So why did the EU stop us from deporting this lot? *-) ........... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/eu-rules-stopped-britain-deporting-murders-rapists-and-violent-c/ "Mr Raab has compiled a dossier of the 50 most serious offenders who have been allowed to remain in the UK because of Brussels red tape. As justice minister, Mr Raab has had first-hand experience of many of the cases the UK has seen thwarted." Is Mr Raab is deliberately misleading us with his first hand experience? >:-) .............. Suggest you look up immigration and deportation. You will find they are two totally different things. An absence of one does not indicate an absence of the other. Your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent. Just pointing out that with the EU you can only have a one way street *-) ............. Once we have their scumbags.......we have to keep them 8-) ......... The UK has become the New Australia :-|...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-12-18 9:50 AM pelmetman - 2018-12-18 8:35 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM It would also be instructive to follow the link at the foot of that page to the blogpost by Bruegel, Bruegel is the European think tank that specialises in economics. ;-) .......... So no EU bias there eh Brian? >:-) .......... BTW seeing as they specialise in "Economics".........why are they giving input to our government about our immigration policies? *-) .......... If you would read, instead of pointlessly blathering, you would know why. I read it ;-) ......... The usual EU spin *-) ......... I prefer reality to spin :-| ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM Much is made of the supposed fact that immigration was a significant driver of Brexit. The government's defence for admitting so many migrants has long been that they were compelled to do so under the EU's "free movement of people" regulations. I have long said that this is not so. This link https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhaff/857/857.pdf leads to the July 2018 Interim Report to parliament by the Home Affairs Select Committee. Download a copy and read it - especially Chapter 3: Existing applicable controls, commencing on page 15. I wonder how many said they intend to rob, rape and murder? :-| .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-12-18 9:50 AM pelmetman - 2018-12-18 8:35 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM It would also be instructive to follow the link at the foot of that page to the blogpost by Bruegel, Bruegel is the European think tank that specialises in economics. ;-) .......... So no EU bias there eh Brian? >:-) .......... BTW seeing as they specialise in "Economics".........why are they giving input to our government about our immigration policies? *-) .......... If you would read, instead of pointlessly blathering, you would know why. He only reads a headline.....if he likes it, that's good enough for him. :-| His comprehension is limited to tweet like comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-12-18 4:04 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-18 9:50 AM pelmetman - 2018-12-18 8:35 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM It would also be instructive to follow the link at the foot of that page to the blogpost by Bruegel, Bruegel is the European think tank that specialises in economics. ;-) .......... So no EU bias there eh Brian? >:-) .......... BTW seeing as they specialise in "Economics".........why are they giving input to our government about our immigration policies? *-) .......... If you would read, instead of pointlessly blathering, you would know why. He only reads a headline.....if he likes it, that's good enough for him. :-| His comprehension is limited to tweet like comments. Here's another :D ........ Is the EU/ECJ not preventing the UK from deporting their criminals? *-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 19, 2018 Author Share Posted December 19, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-12-18 3:18 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-18 9:49 AM pelmetman - 2018-12-18 8:43 AM Brian Kirby - 2018-12-17 11:00 AM Much is made of the supposed fact that immigration was a significant driver of Brexit. The government's defence for admitting so many migrants has long been that they were compelled to do so under the EU's "free movement of people" regulations. I have long said that this is not so. So why did the EU stop us from deporting this lot? *-) ........... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/eu-rules-stopped-britain-deporting-murders-rapists-and-violent-c/ "Mr Raab has compiled a dossier of the 50 most serious offenders who have been allowed to remain in the UK because of Brussels red tape. As justice minister, Mr Raab has had first-hand experience of many of the cases the UK has seen thwarted." Is Mr Raab is deliberately misleading us with his first hand experience? >:-) .............. Suggest you look up immigration and deportation. You will find they are two totally different things. An absence of one does not indicate an absence of the other. Your posts are becoming increasingly incoherent. Just pointing out that with the EU you can only have a one way street *-) ............. Once we have their scumbags.......we have to keep them 8-) ......... The UK has become the New Australia :-|...... I suppose it is a waste of time pointing out to you that the only reason we have them, is because HMG let them in when it had no obligation to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.