|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2023 16:00:26 GMT
another lie from you sid. The mass uncontrolled immigration from eastern europe that pissed off your red wall voters didnt have to happen. It wasnt an eu edict. The EU gave all member states an opt out for eastern european immigration for a set number of years , and blair decided not to use this and flood the uk with eastern europeans , advertising across the east telling them to come as we know and telling uk citizens only a tiny number would arrive , as we know turned out to be new labour bullshit.
The uk under tony blair from memory was the only eu state that didnt enfore a block on eastern european migration after the new member states joined. (possibly except the republic)
The labour party re write history again , and hope people have selective amnesia.
There was a "Transition Period" yes, which Blair COULD HAVE invoked but didnt , and the rest is history showing the uk public cannot trust new labour on immigration as we cant on much else.
I tell you sid , not only would i not want you at immigration advice, but you arent the best at staying off topics new labour have a terrible record on are you?
If you are english , and live in scotland , do you know you cannot get a copy of yout birth certificate from a scottish registry office , but have to apply in your own country , and here you are implying a birth certificate is proof of being a uk citizen FFS.
As today’s generation of political leaders prepares to fight an election that is in part a contest about the mistakes, judgments and assumptions Labour made in government on immigration, it is easy to forget just how much immigration and asylum haunted Downing Street throughout New Labour’s time in office. Between 1997 and 2010, net annual immigration quadrupled, and the UK population was boosted by more than 2.2 million immigrants, more than twice the population of Birmingham. In Labour’s last term in government, 2005-2010, net migration reached on average 247,000 a year.
Andrew Neather, a former No 10 and Home Office adviser, wrote that the Labour government embarked on a deliberate policy from late 2000 to “open up the UK to mass migration”
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2023 16:02:38 GMT
another lie from you sid. The mass uncontrolled immigration from eastern europe that pissed off your red wall voters didnt have to happen. It wasnt an eu edict. The EU gave all member states an opt out for eastern european immigration for a set number of years , and blair decided not to use this and flood the uk with eastern europeans , advertising across the east telling them to come as we know and telling uk citizens only a tiny number would arrive , as we know turned out to be new labour bullshit.
The uk under tony blair from memory was the only eu state that didnt enfore a block on eastern european migration after the new member states joined. (possibly except the republic)
The labour party re write history again , and hope people have selective amnesia.
So, the conclusion here is that Blair could not stop Freedom of Movement ( as agreed to by a CONSERVATIVE government ), he could, at best, delay it by five years. In the end, just Britain, Ireland and Sweden opened up. The other 12 member states, most notably Germany, exercised their right to impose “transitional controls”. “The German labour market was basically closed for Polish workers and that kind of changed everything,” Dustmann says.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Aug 2, 2023 16:04:40 GMT
i mean the articles are many and go on and on telling the same thing about the labour parties disasterous immigration policies when last in government........
The huge political cost of Blair’s decision to allow Eastern European migrants unfettered access to Britain
To understand why Britain became so opposed to migration from the EU, it’s key to understand a decision made by the Labour government in 2004, which has had lasting political repercussions.
In May 2004, the EU welcomed ten new member states – the majority from Central and Eastern Europe – in what was the largest expansion in the history of European integration. The UK was one of only three member states, alongside Sweden and Ireland, to open its labour market to these new EU citizens immediately.
At the time, Labour’s decision was largely uncontroversial and met with bipartisan support in parliament. Yet this was to be perhaps Tony Blair’s greatest unintended legacy and ultimately a contributor to his party’s electoral defeat in years to come.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 16:41:56 GMT
But in the end, I have no effing idea what it is exactly thomas that you are attempting to say or prove ?
I personaly do not have a British passport, so how do you propose that I might prove that I am in fact "British" ?
If, as you say, a birth certificate is not proof of nationality, then what is ?
Would you not say that proof that you were born in England or Scotland would go Some Way to pointing that you are PROBABLY British. ?
The same would apply to a Jamican born between 1948 and 1962, if they can prove that they were born in Jamaica, would that go some way to indicating they are most likely British. ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Freedom Of Movement, it was not a Labour policy ( as you wrongly suggest ), it was contained within The Maastricht Treaty, and signed by two Ministers of John Majors Conservative government.
So the influx of Eastern Europeans COULD OF been delayed by up to 5 years, but then what ?
For me personally, I agree with Freedom Of Movement, I have no problem with it, I supported it, but it had absolutely nothing to do with a Labour government.
Are you attepting to defend what the Tory government did to these people who were wrongly deported ?
What about your own SNP government ?, no political party supports Freedom Of Movement more than the SNP
|
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Aug 2, 2023 19:25:09 GMT
The average compensation payment to the victims of the Windrush Scandal appears to have been somewhere between £50,000 to £100,000.* 'The Windrush scandal was a British political scandal that began in 2018 concerning people who were wrongly detained, denied legal rights, threatened with deportation, and in at least 83 cases wrongly deported from the UK by the Home Office.'* Let's go crazy and suppose that the manfrog has been badly wronged. Bearing in mind the amounts paid to the Windrush Scandal victims, how much does Farage deserve for his 'pain'? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the average figure put forward by our valued gammon membership will be something in the region of a squillion quid. If Farage gets a payment of X, should the government reconsider and give the Windrush Scandal victims X x 100? * www.gov.uk/government/news/over-41-million-compensation-offered-to-the-windrush-generation#:~:text=Over%20%C2%A335%20million%20has,%C2%A3100%2C000%20and%20%C2%A3200%2C000 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandalNope. The Windrush were saints who only came to the UK because well, they were saints who never obtained any financial or social advantages from being in Britain. We know this to be so because if they had, the Guardian and Patman would have told us so, but they ain't, so the Windrush generation and the tug boat they arrived in can go fuck themselves.
On the other hand, Farage is a Brexiter so should be allowed to screw the banks (who are largely Remainers and thus not worth a bucket of cold piss) seventeen ways to Sunday.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Aug 2, 2023 19:35:20 GMT
The average compensation payment to the victims of the Windrush Scandal appears to have been somewhere between £50,000 to £100,000.* 'The Windrush scandal was a British political scandal that began in 2018 concerning people who were wrongly detained, denied legal rights, threatened with deportation, and in at least 83 cases wrongly deported from the UK by the Home Office.'* Let's go crazy and suppose that the manfrog has been badly wronged. Bearing in mind the amounts paid to the Windrush Scandal victims, how much does Farage deserve for his 'pain'? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the average figure put forward by our valued gammon membership will be something in the region of a squillion quid. If Farage gets a payment of X, should the government reconsider and give the Windrush Scandal victims X x 100? * www.gov.uk/government/news/over-41-million-compensation-offered-to-the-windrush-generation#:~:text=Over%20%C2%A335%20million%20has,%C2%A3100%2C000%20and%20%C2%A3200%2C000 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandalNope. The Windrush were saints who only came to the UK because well, they were saints who never obtained any financial or social advantages from being in Britain. We know this to be so because if they had, the Guardian and Patman would have told us so, but they ain't, so the Windrush generation and the tug boat they arrived in can go fuck themselves.
On the other hand, Farage is a Brexiter so should be allowed to screw the banks (who are largely Remainers and thus not worth a bucket of cold piss) seventeen ways to Sunday.
Our criticism of the manfrog comes from a place of love. You know that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Aug 3, 2023 6:32:52 GMT
Labour destroyed their papers, Labour should have paid compensation. Tories paid out furlough and siphoned off money to their mates from "PPE". If Labour win next year's GE, do you think it's the responsibility of the Tory party to repay that money? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Aug 3, 2023 6:45:21 GMT
What's it got to do with Farage?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 3, 2023 7:54:27 GMT
Because Brexit, Farage, Far Right, Climate Change Denier, Tory racists.
That's the lefts answer to everything on here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Aug 3, 2023 7:59:31 GMT
What's it got to do with Nigel Farage?
He always said that legal immigrants are legal immigrants and should have the right to stay.
He always said that a future immigration system should not be enacted retrospectively impacting people who came legally.
It's Labour who destroyed the Windrush paperwork.
Why should taxpayers foot the bill for the mistakes of politicians, or the crimes of politicians? Prosecute parties.
And that also extends to the Tories and Covid mistakes.
Prosecute the parties. If it bankrupts them, tough.
Politicians can make themselves extremely wealthy, as Blair did. But there's no accountability. Bring forth accountability.
Let parties be sued.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Aug 3, 2023 9:07:08 GMT
Hardly made up Sid its immigration law though I will conceed in 1948 we were all CUKC .However even back in the early days just after the war people coming here from the colonies were told to register Oh no they were not . You couldn't just jump out from behind a wall on Brixton high street in 1976 and say you have been here for 20 years , you had to have proof that that was the case . As I personally do not have a UK passport, how do I prove that I am British ?, could it possibly be via a birth certificate ?. Do you not think that a person from the Caribbean who was born a British subject in a British colony would either have their birth registered or hold a birth certificate. ? They may have had equal rights but being equal came with responsability's like proving who you were . Britons could prove who they were because we were documented (birth certs , school records , census ect ) The migrants had nothing , most didnt even have passports so they HAD TO REGISTER . If they didnt then the were STUPID . Your statement above is both rubbish and very condascending - "responsibilities" ?, these people had no more responsibilities than anyone else born a British Subject, including someone from Glasgow, Yorkshire or Barbados ... they were all classed as the same, and equal.
Can you prove that they had to register ? or provide a link / evidence ? From a debate in Parliament 1959 immigration from the Commonwealth '' It has ALWAYS been necessary for any immigrant from the Commonwealth to prove that he is a citizen of the Commonwealth '' Though the debate goes on to mention a particular case regarding Indian folk (we are all CUKC ) the joint under secretary of state says ''They like all other people that come here of whatever nationality were asked, as has to asked , under article 7 of the Aliens order, to establish their identity and Nationality . This they must do in every case either by showing a passport or some other document proving identity and nationality . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 10:31:29 GMT
An immigrant from The Commonwealth is a totally separate status to CUKC
From 1948 to 1962 a Yorkshireman was CUKC, as was a Jamaican, absolutely no difference in status
An immigrant from a Commonwealth nation refers to independent nations such as Australians, Indians or Canadians.
Its a fairly easy thing to admit that you got it wrong, and that I have been correct all along, I would not hold it against anyone for getting it wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 3, 2023 10:32:09 GMT
hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1959-11-17/debates/eda1c95a-22e3-45ac-947e-ae01b4b684f0/ImmigrationFromTheCommonwealthFrom a debate in Parliament 1959 immigration from the Commonwealth '' It has ALWAYS been necessary for any immigrant from the Commonwealth to prove that he is a citizen of the Commonwealth '' Though the debate goes on to mention a particular case regarding Indian folk (we are all CUKC ) the joint under secretary of state says ''They like all other people that come here of whatever nationality were asked, as has to asked , under article 7 of the Aliens order, to establish their identity and Nationality . This they must do in every case either by showing a passport or some other document proving identity and nationality . Fiddler talking bollocks as usual then. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Aug 4, 2023 10:20:44 GMT
An immigrant from The Commonwealth is a totally separate status to CUKC From 1948 to 1962 a Yorkshireman was CUKC, as was a Jamaican, absolutely no difference in status An immigrant from a Commonwealth nation refers to independent nations such as Australians, Indians or Canadians. Its a fairly easy thing to admit that you got it wrong, and that I have been correct all along, I would not hold it against anyone for getting it wrong. The point is that regardless of status everyone has to and always has (well since WW1) needed to satisfy immigration control as to their identity/nationality when entering the country . The Windrush people did this by passport or registration . You seem to believe that the Jamacian could just walk into the country without documentation while ignoring the fact that the Tyke would have to show a passport . Wasn't that the whole argument about the windrush problems ,that registration cards had been destroyed leaving people without other proof of nationality in limbo ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2023 11:45:32 GMT
Let me make this clear
Having a legal right to come to the UK, they neither needed nor were given any documents upon entry to the UK, nor following changes in immigration laws in the early 1970s. Many worked or attended schools in the UK without any official documentary record of their having done so, other than the same records as any UK-born citizen.
Once again - The Windrush Scandal was 100% the fault of the British government
|
|
