Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#1
The Coalition is at odds over a key Conservative election pledge to impose a strict annual limit on immigration. Vince Cable led a growing rebellion against enforcing a draconian cap on numbers coming into the country, demanding 'as liberal a policy as possible'.
The row came as it emerged that immigration and rising birth rates mean that Britain accounted for nearly a third of the growth in population across the whole of Europe last year, with 412,000 added to the UK total.
Mr Cable, visiting India with David Cameron, said 'It's no great secret that in my department and me personally, we want to see an open economy, and as liberal an immigration policy as it's possible to have. (What that means I 'm not sure.)
Gerard Batten, of the UK Independence Party, said: 'This coalition has accepted that it cannot control EU migration, and now it tells us it doesn't want to control non-EU migration. What part of this policy has anyone voted for?'
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#2
More cracks in the co oloition opening up, and on a big issue to.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#3
While its true a lot of people are no doubt concerned about immigration, it must also be remembered that immigrants are a vital part of our economic and social scene. Its just not possible to manage without them. If in doubt take a trip to London and look around. Almost everything runs on immigration, all the services etc.
There is a lot of understandable emotion about the issue, the erasing of traditional community identity and so on, but whats to be done??
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
Cable is a liablility and grossly overrated. My blog to be uploaded later today examines the Libdems generally and in some detail and asks whether the really are an asset to the coalition.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#5
thats a bit biased barry.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#6
You surprise me Brian.... The BBC and Guardian certainly are biased in the way they 'big up' this useless third-rater Cable.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
DC was interviewed in India - I quote a Conhome report....
He made it clear that there would be no dilution of the Coalition Agreement's commitment to reduce net immigration into Britain from the "hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands".
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#8
We see now the cracks opening up locally and nationaly, i still give it 18 months
#9
I think Gerrd Batten needs to read what people have said a few times to ensure he doesn't misinterpret what is actually said from what he wants to hear them say. We all want an open economy with as liberal an immigration policy as possible. Question is, what is possible? Answer, not as much as under Labour where we operated an open door policy, or, if you will, a free for all and to hell with the consequences.
Keith, give it a rest.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#10
SID
One clear reply NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
18 months
you heard it here first
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#11
I think the major problem that all political parties have is dealing with immigration is that it is such a hot political potato which they fear will cost them votes.
We have a legal obligation to fellow members of the EU which allows free movement of labour and a historical obligation ( in some peoples opinion) to the old Empire now Commonwealth citizens. Immigration has to be fair but firm and without prejudice to race creed colour or religion.
So where do we start? Firstly all EU members should be subject to a CRO check which these days can be done at the point of departure. Secondly Commonwealth citizens should all require visas to come to the UK (for whatever purpose) which ensures background checks can be carried out not only on the individual but also on the college where they intend to study,the relatives they intend to visit or the place they intend to work etc.
Finally all other nationalities should require visas for whatever purpose they wish to come to the UK.Primary immigration should cease and secondary immigration should only apply to spouses wishing to join their loved ones which means that dependants ie Aunt Maggie or Granny Smith should remain in their home country.
As for asylum what bugs me is that because Thatcher agreed to Asylum seekers being allowed to claim refuge in the country of their choice that most of them now cross Europe to get to the UK. Wrong.. lets make asylum seekers claim refuge in their first safe country (as per 51 Geneva Convention ) ie if they manage to scramble across the borders from the middle east or Africa they should claim asylum in Turkey or Italy France or Spain not being allowed and in many cases funded to help them on their journey to the UK where housing schooling benefits await them.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#12
i am sure that the bill or whatever you would like to call it which was introdused by maggie could be repeald or got rid of witch ever it is.other wise i would agree with marek on this one.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#13
barryw,no need to be surpized vince cable being old school is a thing i like about him.he all so speaks his mind which i like to.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
Pity he is an incompetent old buffer Brian.
Keith - the reason I think you are wrong is that within a year we will have the difficult decisions biting and the LibDems will be in the wworse possible electoral position. They will be locked in until the fruits of the difficult decions show. I would not expect that for 2-3 years at least with their electoral prospects not improving for 3/4 years - hence why there is a good chance for the coalition to survive. The LDs may split in the meantime leaving the government with a reduced majority. Be a pity if that happens though as if they are clever and sensible they would have a chance of supplanting Labour as the main opposition party. Clever and sensible LDs is perhaps a bit much to hope for.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#15
BARRYW
I think that the Lib Dems for different reasons have destroyed themselves, with the tories clearly just using them whilst the time fits, come any election the tories will rightly ditch them, and lib dems wont be voting lib dem, many aree so disgusted at way clegg dis owned its membership.
Cracks will open up within the ranks of the lib dems, but how long will cameron put up wsith clegg cocking up at question time and having to distance his party from clegg?.
Still say within 18 months it wont look so roset(not gthat it does now!!!)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#16
Hello Marek! Your post here is interesting, but could I put forward a question? Do the immigration proposals that the e.u. present go for all 27 e.u. states, or only for Britain and a few western European countries? I've beena asking myself why a proportion of e.u. states simply have a no-go zone when it comes to immigation. I think this question should be seriously put forward to Brussels, and I also understand that the minimum wage in many e.u. states would be about 1,50 or 2 pounds an hour (the equivalent theref-of), making it as good as imposible for western citizens to work in these countries, which practicaly excludesany form of reciprocal behaviour and interest between citizens of e.u. states on an East-West level. However, the many economists on this forum avoid this subject, and yet, it should be of maximum importance. If anyone were to try to convince me of the utility of the e.u., I would expect them toanswer these questions concerning different laws on immigration from non e.u. countries in the e.u., as some countries in the e.u. simply would not dream of opening their borders and economies to millions of non e'u' citizens, and not even to hundreds of thousands. And because no-one explins how a British or German or Dutch citizen could possibly work in eastern Europe on a 2 pounds an hour wage and send the money home, where-as the opposite is easily possible: to work here to 6 pounds an hour and invest the savings in the East, where the prices (of food, rent, housing in general) is much lower!
Alas, no coment from any forumite yet! Apart from the UKIP members who obviously are aware of the discrepencies ofthe e.u. system.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#17
I am tryng to make a fair case without being repetative, but I would expect some e.u. supporters to to give their view on this.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#18
barry
rest assured that the yellows will not be the main opposition in the foreseeable future.
there was a mass tear up of membership cards once the coaliton was formed, the reds were inundated with applications to join them from the former yellow members.
a most recent poll showed that 40% of yellow voters considered there parties actions to be "judas".
a rough calculation shows that their share of the vote will plummet in future.
a basket of recent opinion polls(for what they are worth) shows blues on 40% reds on 38% yellows 14%.
i would predict that ukip are much more likely to take over as the third force in british politics.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#19
HOWARD
I have to be honest and say the lib dems will remain the 3rd party
but there co lition will have lost them a lot of support.
they will be destroyed at next election.
my only fear is because they collapse the tories get outright majority
what a disaster that would be
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#20
i totally disagree with that keith, we shall have to wait and see though.
barry
what alternative is there?
no yellows in the government surely means no government dragging a bored and disenchanted electorate to the polls again.