2NaFish Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 maybe its cos im on a mobile but that link was invalid geoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Nope! I thought it might be Dermot Ahern though. Close. You have mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 The Last Word, hopefully Think this sums it up nicely. Good article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Close. You have mail. At least only one of these gentlemen buys their suits in Matalan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 At least only one of these gentlemen buys their suits in Matalan! Form is temporary, class is, er, whatever the other thing is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You mention that the report concludes this amongst "other things". At the risk of asking what may seem like a daft question, what "other things"? The "other things" discussed include :- Variations on fiscal benefit across different immigrant groups (EU and non-EU); future potential problems due to a rising poulation density ; discussion of how immigration isn't the answer to the perceived "pensions time-bomb" ; how the UK needs a better system of statistic gathering and highlights exploitation & poor working conditions suffered by those who choose to leave their homeland, to work in the UK. The conclusions reached were to 1. Review immigration statistics, 2. Review government immigration policy 3. Better enforcement of minimum wage 4. Clarify govt. objectives on immigration policy and 5. Review projected migration figures. At risk of another daft question and drifting way off-topic; can you explain your "woosh" comment on the 9/11 thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 The "other things" discussed include I didn't ask what the report discussed. I asked what it concluded. The conclusions reached were to 1. Review immigration statistics, 2. Review government immigration policy 3. Better enforcement of minimum wage 4. Clarify govt. objectives on immigration policy and 5. Review projected migration figures. Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying there were six conclusions. The five you cite above, plus: "mass immigration from eastern europe wasn't such a good thing for the UK." Leaving aside the language (I'm sure their Lordships don't write official reports in such an informal way), is that what you're saying? At risk of another daft question and drifting way off-topic; can you explain your "woosh" comment on the 9/11 thread Let's stay on topic, unless you're claiming that a terrorist attack in the United States in 2001 is in some way related to Polish people migrating to Britain between 2004 and 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big G Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I'd be more worried about the EU Lisbon treaty than domestic politics right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I didn't ask what the report discussed. I asked what it concluded.: :Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying there were six conclusions. The five you cite above, plus:"mass immigration from eastern europe wasn't such a good thing for the UK." Leaving aside the language ... is that what you're saying?: Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Yes And what's your source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 And what's your source? The Lord's report titled "The Economic Impact of Immigration" quoted in #544. I think it was published April 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 The Lord's report titled "The Economic Impact of Immigration" quoted in #544.I think it was published April 2008 Could you be a bit more specific? What I'm looking for is a source for your conclusion that "mass immigration from eastern europe wasn't such a good thing for the UK." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Could you be a bit more specific? What I'm looking for is a source for your conclusion that "mass immigration from eastern europe wasn't such a good thing for the UK." If you read the Economic Comittee's Reporthttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf you'll get all the answers you need , and note the conclusion that mass eastern european immigration hasn't been that great for the UK. I'm not disagreeing and I don't know how much more specific you need without going into detail, which is perhaps subject for another thread. Only saw QT yesterday and haven't looked through all of this thread but has Baroness Warsi's statement that :- "there's no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker " been challenged ? It's a strange one given her previous party leader, William Hague made being tough on bogus asylum seekers, a point of policy during his leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 If you read the Economic Comittee's Reporthttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf you'll get all the answers you need , and note the conclusion that mass eastern european immigration hasn't been that great for the UK. I'm not disagreeing and I don't know how much more specific you need without going into detail, which is perhaps subject for another thread. Only saw QT yesterday and haven't looked through all of this thread but has Baroness Warsi's statement that :- "there's no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker " been challenged ? It's a strange one given her previous party leader, William Hague made being tough on bogus asylum seekers, a point of policy during his leadership. The report concludes looked from an economic outlook alone that the in the long term the benefits of immigration are 'small' on the basis the evidence currently available. It does not say that immigration is a bad thing and should not be protrayed as such. It as easy and more accurate to suggest that the report concludes that immigration has been good economically for the UK. Do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 The report concludes looked from an economic outlook alone that the in the long term the benefits of immigration are 'small' on the basis the evidence currently available. It does not say that immigration is a bad thing and should not be protrayed as such. It as easy and more accurate to suggest that the report concludes that immigration has been good economically for the UK. Do you agree? You are correct. the report doesn't say immigration's a bad thing and neither do I. It would be more accurate to say the report highlights recent eastern european immigration as being of little fiscal benefit to the UK economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You are correct. the report doesn't say immigration's a bad thing and neither do I.It would be more accurate to say the report highlights recent eastern european immigration as being of little fiscal benefit to the UK economy. It also means that those who suggest that immigration is fleecing the taxpayer are entirely wrong. In fact it is making a fiscal contribution. Do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 It also means that those who suggest that immigration is fleecing the taxpayer are entirely wrong. In fact it is making a fiscal contribution. Do you agree? Who is suggesting that immigration is fleecing the taxpayer ? You can't talk about benefits or negatives of immigration without being specific. Which areas do you mean in terms of making a fiscal contribution - Irish; Indian; Pakistani, American; Foreign students , or new high-point scoring non-nationals ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 It would be more accurate to say the report highlights recent eastern european immigration as being of little fiscal benefit to the UK economy. First of all, it's not remotely clear what that means - unless it means you're trying to backpedal from your original inaccurate position. You said that the report concludes that mass immigration from eastern europe wasn't such a good thing for the UK . The underlining emphasis was yours, not mine. You also say that "From this report it was decided to change government policy and place some restriction of EU immigration (Bulgaria / Romania)" I've read the report's conclusions and recommendations - they are set out in paragraphs 208 to 245. There is no reference to Eastern Europe, to any of the countries of Eastern Europe, or to the term "A8 countries" which refers to the eight former "Eastern Bloc" countries that joined the EU in 2004. There is also no reference to Romania or Bulgaria, so it is difficult to see how it influenced government policy in relation to freedom of movement from those countries. The problem with your statement is not helped - to say the least - by the fact that the report was published in April 2008, while the policy that you say arose from it was announced by the Home Secretary in October 2006. You might want to rethink that one, unless you believe in time travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You might want to rethink that one, unless you believe in time travel. The points based immigration system came into effect in November 2008 - seven months after the Economic Committee's Report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 The points based immigration system came into effect in November 2008 - seven months after the Economic Committee's Report. The restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians working in the UK were announced in October 2006 - 18 months before the report was published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 You are correct. the report doesn't say immigration's a bad thing and neither do I.It would be more accurate to say the report highlights recent eastern european immigration as being of little fiscal benefit to the UK economy. Who is suggesting that immigration is fleecing the taxpayer ?You can't talk about benefits or negatives of immigration without being specific. Which areas do you mean in terms of making a fiscal contribution - Irish; Indian; Pakistani, American; Foreign students , or new high-point scoring non-nationals ? Well I saw a few folk on the BBC news the other night wrongly saying so. I'm not saying anything I'm only quoting from the Report you paraphrased. They concluded there was an overall fiscal benefit which means they contributed more to revenues than they took out dont you Agree? I'm blind to the roots of these fiscal contributors whether they are a plumber or a surgeon. Do you support that view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 First of all, it's not remotely clear what that means .. You said that the report concludes that mass immigration from eastern europe wasn't such a good thing for the UK . The underlining emphasis was yours, not mine. Correct There is no reference to Eastern Europe to any of the countries of Eastern Europe, or to the term "A8 countries" which refers to the eight former "Eastern Bloc" countries that joined the EU in 2004.There is also no reference to Romania or Bulgaria, A quick word search reveals there's 16 direct references to Bulgaria & Romania - you must be looking at some other report, Are you looking up 9/11 conspiracies ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I'm colour blind as to the roots of these fiscal contributors whether they are a plumber or a surgeon. Do you support that view? Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Correct A quick word search reveals there's 16 direct references to Bulgaria & Romania - you must be looking at some other report, Are you looking up 9/11 conspiracies ? There are three references to "Romania" and five to "Romanians". There are three references to "Bulgaria" and five to "Bulgarians". There are also 13 references to "Eastern Europe" or "Eastern Europeans". However, as I have already said, none of these references appear in the report's conclusions and recommendations, which appear in paragraphs 208 to 245. And as I have already pointed out, the restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians working in the UK were announced 18 months before this report was published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 The restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians working in the UK were announced in October 2006 - 18 months before the report was published. ..at a time when Bulgaria & Romania weren't even part of the EU ! Restrictions were placed upon their entry in 2007, on advice from the Migration Advisory Committee - a consultee of the Report originally referred to, who were being consulted prior to 2007. As I've said - The Lords Report posted has shaped and informed current government policy on immigration - both from EEA and further afield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 The points based immigration system came into effect in November 2008 - seven months after the Economic Committee's Report. The Economic Committee's report contradicts you. It says that the first phase (Tier 1) of the points-based system was introduced in February 2008. As it happens, a phase of the system was rolled out in November 2008 (Tiers 2 and 5), but the system itself was already being implemented before the report was published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 ..at a time when Bulgaria & Romania weren't even part of the EU ! Of course. The restrictions were announced 10 weeks before the accession date. Whether or not one agrees with the policy, it seems eminently sensible to announce it in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 As I've said - The Lords Report posted has shaped and informed current government policy on immigration - both from EEA and further afield. But you said other stuff, and let's face it you may as well have been singing to your cat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felix Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 But you said other stuff, and let's face it you may as well have been singing to your cat. Thanks for acknowledgeing my point albeit in a roundabout way. Which bits of "other stuff" do you want clarified ? ...once you've set them out can you switch to the 9/11 thread and explain the "woosh" bit I missed about tenants of WTC7. Back on topic....what about Baroness Warsi's comment on there being "no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker"...? Strange for a Conservative or is there a woosh factor involved here too ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Thanks for acknowledgeing my point albeit in a roundabout way. Acknowledging what? The report did make some contribution to immigration policy. But not the contribution you claimed it made. You claimed that it reached some conclusions in relation to people migrating to the UK from Eastern Europe. But it did not. Eastern Europe is not referenced anywhere in the 38 paragraphs of conclusions and recommendations in the report. You claimed the report influenced the government's decision to restrict people from Bulgaria and Romania from working in the UK after these countries joined the EU. But it did not. The report was publised in April 2008, nearly 18 months after the restrictions were announced in October 2006. You claimed that the points-based immigration system came into effect seven months after the report was published. But it did not. The report itself contradicts you. Despite the fact that you were wrong on all of the claims you made, you may have some residual capacity to convince yourself you were right. So let's leave no room for doubt. You were wrong. Now you can stop tormenting your poor cat and get back to discussing the BNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Back on topic....what about Baroness Warsi's comment on there being "no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker"...? Strange for a Conservative or is there a woosh factor involved here too ?. What about it, indeed? In context, what she was saying made sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Thanks for acknowledgeing my point albeit in a roundabout way.Which bits of "other stuff" do you want clarified ? ...once you've set them out can you switch to the 9/11 thread and explain the "woosh" bit I missed about tenants of WTC7. Back on topic....what about Baroness Warsi's comment on there being "no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker"...? Strange for a Conservative or is there a woosh factor involved here too ?. She was being precise and Accurate unlike some of your comments as pointed out by others. There is no such thing in law as a bogus asylum seeker only an asylum seeker who turns out to be bogus. Under international law if someone gains entry to a country and claims asylum then they must be given entry and that claim assessed. Thats what she meant when she said it was a legal term. In practical terms you cannot call on politicians to refuse entry to bogus asylum seekers. You can only call on them to deport those whose claims are found to be bogus. Unless of course you want the UK to withdraw from international agreements like the Geneva Convention which also affords rights to UK citizens OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 I should have been clearer and said that a claim for asylum that is turned down may not be bogus. It can also be turned down because the assessors conclude that the reasons given may be real but not sufficient to warrant asylum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moriarty Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.