This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
EU forces compulsory quotas on opposed countries
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Stuk  Top half 23 Sep 15 2.44pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 2.39pm
Quote Canterbury Palace at 23 Sep 2015 2.19pm
The OECD have released a study that says the UK took 558,000 migrants in 2014, the third most in the world and around 300,000 more than Spain in 4th place. Significantly it was also the third largest percentage (24%) on the previous year behind the Czech Republic and Israel. Yet apparently we don't 'do our bit'. If we were to subscribe to a truly fair system of distribution then by all rights the amount of migrants we take annually should actually drop. Of those around 25,000 were via Asylum/Refugees. Around 125,000 British citizens left the UK long term or permanently, along with about another 200,000 non-UK citizens. There is a problem, but its not with refugees and asylum cases, but with economic migration. Some 42% of the UK's migration is made up from economic migration under the EU's Right to Work policy. We need to reduce the numbers of people coming here to work, definitely, by around 200k a year.
We just need to get out of the EU freedom of movement. Problem solved in one decision.
Optimistic as ever |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 Hrolf The Ganger 23 Sep 15 3.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Although I have argued with Jamie that people are people regardless of status in terms of their adding to our exploding population, I believe he is right to point out that the refugee numbers are relatively small. The problem is that the refugees have had a straw breaking the camels back effect (no pun intended) for a country that has, if the last election is any measure, had it's fill of migrants and their negative side.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Sep 15 3.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 23 Sep 2015 3.09pm
Although I have argued with Jamie that people are people regardless of status in terms of their adding to our exploding population, I believe he is right to point out that the refugee numbers are relatively small. The problem is that the refugees have had a straw breaking the camels back effect (no pun intended) for a country that has, if the last election is any measure, had it's fill of migrants and their negative side. Indeed, this really is a stick to beat the EU Right to Work nonsense with, and maybe an ideal opportunity to target the EU's preference for Corporate interests over member nations citizens interests.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| wombat84 23 Sep 15 3.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 23 Sep 2015 2.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 1.01pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 23 Sep 2015 11.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 8.55am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 22 Sep 2015 10.03pm
You'd think that truly desperate people would go to the nearest safe place. Yes, but you can't just leave people in a campsite indefinitely. A relevant point to consider here is that people from Syria who do make it into EU countries and claim asylum can't be sent back to Syria. I would reject the idea of quotas for migrants, but the idea of distributing refuges and asylum applicants, specifically from camps is a more controlled method, that would also serve to reduce the impact on those countries where they do turn up. The EU should maybe consider an incentive, countries that don't participate should be removed from the EU Free Movement. I notice that Poland, Romania, Hungary and the Czech republic all are quite happy with accepting the benefits of migration of their nationals into other countries. Never mind camps. Why can't any of the numerous countries outside Europe take them permanently ? Because they're presently in the EU. I believe that the UNHCR are trying to locate refugees to numerous countries. Isn't something like 250-300,000 believed to have made it into the EU, and we're all hissy about it being unfair, whilst Turkey has half a million, Lebanon has 1m and Jordan another half a million. These countries have the weather, customs and religion they are accustomed to hence the reason we are being hissy about it. I personally do not want my grandchildren and great grandchildren being brought up in a muslim dominated country I am afraid as that is what is going to happen mark my words. You have to look forward to the future to see what is happing in Europe. Belgium has realised and started to send people back from the camps and communities they set up because a lot of towns there are mostly muslims !!! Great post,my thoughts exactly.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Sep 15 3.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 23 Sep 2015 2.44pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 2.39pm
Quote Canterbury Palace at 23 Sep 2015 2.19pm
The OECD have released a study that says the UK took 558,000 migrants in 2014, the third most in the world and around 300,000 more than Spain in 4th place. Significantly it was also the third largest percentage (24%) on the previous year behind the Czech Republic and Israel. Yet apparently we don't 'do our bit'. If we were to subscribe to a truly fair system of distribution then by all rights the amount of migrants we take annually should actually drop. Of those around 25,000 were via Asylum/Refugees. Around 125,000 British citizens left the UK long term or permanently, along with about another 200,000 non-UK citizens. There is a problem, but its not with refugees and asylum cases, but with economic migration. Some 42% of the UK's migration is made up from economic migration under the EU's Right to Work policy. We need to reduce the numbers of people coming here to work, definitely, by around 200k a year.
We just need to get out of the EU freedom of movement. Problem solved in one decision. That doesn't seem to be the case though. They're not on a gap year, plus that's roughly an average for each year. They're long term emigration. The significant factor is that it dwarfs the number of asylum applications. But I certainly agree with ending the EU freedom of Movement (as it applies to work). That would account for a reduction in UK migration of around 200,000 people per year. Working migration to the UK needs to be controlled for the good of the nations long term interest. It only serves to benefit Corporate interests in the UK and their ability to squeeze wage demands. You cannot have any kind of 'unrestricted' form of migration without creating problems like this. As it stands, of the 550,000 people migrating into the UK last year, 42% where from within the EU.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 23 Sep 15 3.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 3.22pm
Quote Stuk at 23 Sep 2015 2.44pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 2.39pm
Quote Canterbury Palace at 23 Sep 2015 2.19pm
The OECD have released a study that says the UK took 558,000 migrants in 2014, the third most in the world and around 300,000 more than Spain in 4th place. Significantly it was also the third largest percentage (24%) on the previous year behind the Czech Republic and Israel. Yet apparently we don't 'do our bit'. If we were to subscribe to a truly fair system of distribution then by all rights the amount of migrants we take annually should actually drop. Of those around 25,000 were via Asylum/Refugees. Around 125,000 British citizens left the UK long term or permanently, along with about another 200,000 non-UK citizens. There is a problem, but its not with refugees and asylum cases, but with economic migration. Some 42% of the UK's migration is made up from economic migration under the EU's Right to Work policy. We need to reduce the numbers of people coming here to work, definitely, by around 200k a year.
We just need to get out of the EU freedom of movement. Problem solved in one decision. That doesn't seem to be the case though. They're not on a gap year, plus that's roughly an average for each year. They're long term emigration. The significant factor is that it dwarfs the number of asylum applications. But I certainly agree with ending the EU freedom of Movement (as it applies to work). That would account for a reduction in UK migration of around 200,000 people per year. Working migration to the UK needs to be controlled for the good of the nations long term interest. It only serves to benefit Corporate interests in the UK and their ability to squeeze wage demands. You cannot have any kind of 'unrestricted' form of migration without creating problems like this. As it stands, of the 550,000 people migrating into the UK last year, 42% where from within the EU.
Also a lot of the British citizens leaving could be originally from other EU countries but now have British citizenship. ie Poles or French people going back home.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Sep 15 3.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote wombat84 at 23 Sep 2015 3.19pm
Quote susmik at 23 Sep 2015 2.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 1.01pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 23 Sep 2015 11.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 8.55am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 22 Sep 2015 10.03pm
You'd think that truly desperate people would go to the nearest safe place. Yes, but you can't just leave people in a campsite indefinitely. A relevant point to consider here is that people from Syria who do make it into EU countries and claim asylum can't be sent back to Syria. I would reject the idea of quotas for migrants, but the idea of distributing refuges and asylum applicants, specifically from camps is a more controlled method, that would also serve to reduce the impact on those countries where they do turn up. The EU should maybe consider an incentive, countries that don't participate should be removed from the EU Free Movement. I notice that Poland, Romania, Hungary and the Czech republic all are quite happy with accepting the benefits of migration of their nationals into other countries. Never mind camps. Why can't any of the numerous countries outside Europe take them permanently ? Because they're presently in the EU. I believe that the UNHCR are trying to locate refugees to numerous countries. Isn't something like 250-300,000 believed to have made it into the EU, and we're all hissy about it being unfair, whilst Turkey has half a million, Lebanon has 1m and Jordan another half a million. These countries have the weather, customs and religion they are accustomed to hence the reason we are being hissy about it. I personally do not want my grandchildren and great grandchildren being brought up in a muslim dominated country I am afraid as that is what is going to happen mark my words. You have to look forward to the future to see what is happing in Europe. Belgium has realised and started to send people back from the camps and communities they set up because a lot of towns there are mostly muslims !!! Great post,my thoughts exactly. Problem is that's not really true (well the customs and religions part). There is a world of difference between a lot of Arabic countrys, and the role Islam plays. Syria, for example, was a largely secular nation like pre-war Iraq, with Baathists political dominating the culture, as opposed to say the theocratic nature of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Its also important to remember that Syria also consists of Christians, Yazadis, Druze, Mandians with Sunni Muslims only making up about 60% of the population of Syria.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 23 Sep 15 3.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 23 Sep 2015 3.27pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 3.22pm
Quote Stuk at 23 Sep 2015 2.44pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 2.39pm
Quote Canterbury Palace at 23 Sep 2015 2.19pm
The OECD have released a study that says the UK took 558,000 migrants in 2014, the third most in the world and around 300,000 more than Spain in 4th place. Significantly it was also the third largest percentage (24%) on the previous year behind the Czech Republic and Israel. Yet apparently we don't 'do our bit'. If we were to subscribe to a truly fair system of distribution then by all rights the amount of migrants we take annually should actually drop. Of those around 25,000 were via Asylum/Refugees. Around 125,000 British citizens left the UK long term or permanently, along with about another 200,000 non-UK citizens. There is a problem, but its not with refugees and asylum cases, but with economic migration. Some 42% of the UK's migration is made up from economic migration under the EU's Right to Work policy. We need to reduce the numbers of people coming here to work, definitely, by around 200k a year.
We just need to get out of the EU freedom of movement. Problem solved in one decision. That doesn't seem to be the case though. They're not on a gap year, plus that's roughly an average for each year. They're long term emigration. The significant factor is that it dwarfs the number of asylum applications. But I certainly agree with ending the EU freedom of Movement (as it applies to work). That would account for a reduction in UK migration of around 200,000 people per year. Working migration to the UK needs to be controlled for the good of the nations long term interest. It only serves to benefit Corporate interests in the UK and their ability to squeeze wage demands. You cannot have any kind of 'unrestricted' form of migration without creating problems like this. As it stands, of the 550,000 people migrating into the UK last year, 42% where from within the EU.
Also a lot of the British citizens leaving could be originally from other EU countries but now have British citizenship. ie Poles or French people going back home. Yes, they could be, but they still count as part of the 225,000 people who leave the UK as opposed to the 500,000 who come in each year. I don't have any idea of the individual break down of the 125,000 emigrating UK Citizens. It doesn't change the reality though, that the problems of the UK immigration stem from non-asylum cases, of which a major factor is working migration from within and outside the EU (Its more than just an EU thing). But I do agree with you, that EU right to work and practices of companies sponsoring cheap overseas workers rather than employing within the UK need to be at the very least tightly controlled.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 23 Sep 15 4.38pm | |
|---|---|
|
Quote wombat84 at 23 Sep 2015 3.19pm
Quote susmik at 23 Sep 2015 2.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 1.01pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 23 Sep 2015 11.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 8.55am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 22 Sep 2015 10.03pm
You'd think that truly desperate people would go to the nearest safe place. Yes, but you can't just leave people in a campsite indefinitely. A relevant point to consider here is that people from Syria who do make it into EU countries and claim asylum can't be sent back to Syria. I would reject the idea of quotas for migrants, but the idea of distributing refuges and asylum applicants, specifically from camps is a more controlled method, that would also serve to reduce the impact on those countries where they do turn up. The EU should maybe consider an incentive, countries that don't participate should be removed from the EU Free Movement. I notice that Poland, Romania, Hungary and the Czech republic all are quite happy with accepting the benefits of migration of their nationals into other countries. Never mind camps. Why can't any of the numerous countries outside Europe take them permanently ? Because they're presently in the EU. I believe that the UNHCR are trying to locate refugees to numerous countries. Isn't something like 250-300,000 believed to have made it into the EU, and we're all hissy about it being unfair, whilst Turkey has half a million, Lebanon has 1m and Jordan another half a million. These countries have the weather, customs and religion they are accustomed to hence the reason we are being hissy about it. I personally do not want my grandchildren and great grandchildren being brought up in a muslim dominated country I am afraid as that is what is going to happen mark my words. You have to look forward to the future to see what is happing in Europe. Belgium has realised and started to send people back from the camps and communities they set up because a lot of towns there are mostly muslims !!! Great post,my thoughts exactly.
It's just a matter of time before one or more of them gets lucky with a bomb plot. Then everyone will wake up and smell the coffee.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 23 Sep 15 5.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Sep 2015 4.38pm
Quote wombat84 at 23 Sep 2015 3.19pm
Quote susmik at 23 Sep 2015 2.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 1.01pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 23 Sep 2015 11.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 8.55am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 22 Sep 2015 10.03pm
You'd think that truly desperate people would go to the nearest safe place. Yes, but you can't just leave people in a campsite indefinitely. A relevant point to consider here is that people from Syria who do make it into EU countries and claim asylum can't be sent back to Syria. I would reject the idea of quotas for migrants, but the idea of distributing refuges and asylum applicants, specifically from camps is a more controlled method, that would also serve to reduce the impact on those countries where they do turn up. The EU should maybe consider an incentive, countries that don't participate should be removed from the EU Free Movement. I notice that Poland, Romania, Hungary and the Czech republic all are quite happy with accepting the benefits of migration of their nationals into other countries. Never mind camps. Why can't any of the numerous countries outside Europe take them permanently ? Because they're presently in the EU. I believe that the UNHCR are trying to locate refugees to numerous countries. Isn't something like 250-300,000 believed to have made it into the EU, and we're all hissy about it being unfair, whilst Turkey has half a million, Lebanon has 1m and Jordan another half a million. These countries have the weather, customs and religion they are accustomed to hence the reason we are being hissy about it. I personally do not want my grandchildren and great grandchildren being brought up in a muslim dominated country I am afraid as that is what is going to happen mark my words. You have to look forward to the future to see what is happing in Europe. Belgium has realised and started to send people back from the camps and communities they set up because a lot of towns there are mostly muslims !!! Great post,my thoughts exactly.
It's just a matter of time before one or more of them gets lucky with a bomb plot. Then everyone will wake up and smell the coffee.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kingdowieonthewall Sussex, ex-Cronx. 23 Sep 15 5.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote oldcodger at 23 Sep 2015 5.30pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Sep 2015 4.38pm
Quote wombat84 at 23 Sep 2015 3.19pm
Quote susmik at 23 Sep 2015 2.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 1.01pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 23 Sep 2015 11.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 8.55am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 22 Sep 2015 10.03pm
You'd think that truly desperate people would go to the nearest safe place. Yes, but you can't just leave people in a campsite indefinitely. A relevant point to consider here is that people from Syria who do make it into EU countries and claim asylum can't be sent back to Syria. I would reject the idea of quotas for migrants, but the idea of distributing refuges and asylum applicants, specifically from camps is a more controlled method, that would also serve to reduce the impact on those countries where they do turn up. The EU should maybe consider an incentive, countries that don't participate should be removed from the EU Free Movement. I notice that Poland, Romania, Hungary and the Czech republic all are quite happy with accepting the benefits of migration of their nationals into other countries. Never mind camps. Why can't any of the numerous countries outside Europe take them permanently ? Because they're presently in the EU. I believe that the UNHCR are trying to locate refugees to numerous countries. Isn't something like 250-300,000 believed to have made it into the EU, and we're all hissy about it being unfair, whilst Turkey has half a million, Lebanon has 1m and Jordan another half a million. These countries have the weather, customs and religion they are accustomed to hence the reason we are being hissy about it. I personally do not want my grandchildren and great grandchildren being brought up in a muslim dominated country I am afraid as that is what is going to happen mark my words. You have to look forward to the future to see what is happing in Europe. Belgium has realised and started to send people back from the camps and communities they set up because a lot of towns there are mostly muslims !!! Great post,my thoughts exactly.
It's just a matter of time before one or more of them gets lucky with a bomb plot. Then everyone will wake up and smell the coffee.
I think he's just concerned about the odd few hundred that may well do.
Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents? |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 23 Sep 15 7.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 23 Sep 2015 4.38pm
Quote wombat84 at 23 Sep 2015 3.19pm
Quote susmik at 23 Sep 2015 2.18pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 1.01pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 23 Sep 2015 11.57am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 23 Sep 2015 8.55am
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 22 Sep 2015 10.03pm
You'd think that truly desperate people would go to the nearest safe place. Yes, but you can't just leave people in a campsite indefinitely. A relevant point to consider here is that people from Syria who do make it into EU countries and claim asylum can't be sent back to Syria. I would reject the idea of quotas for migrants, but the idea of distributing refuges and asylum applicants, specifically from camps is a more controlled method, that would also serve to reduce the impact on those countries where they do turn up. The EU should maybe consider an incentive, countries that don't participate should be removed from the EU Free Movement. I notice that Poland, Romania, Hungary and the Czech republic all are quite happy with accepting the benefits of migration of their nationals into other countries. Never mind camps. Why can't any of the numerous countries outside Europe take them permanently ? Because they're presently in the EU. I believe that the UNHCR are trying to locate refugees to numerous countries. Isn't something like 250-300,000 believed to have made it into the EU, and we're all hissy about it being unfair, whilst Turkey has half a million, Lebanon has 1m and Jordan another half a million. These countries have the weather, customs and religion they are accustomed to hence the reason we are being hissy about it. I personally do not want my grandchildren and great grandchildren being brought up in a muslim dominated country I am afraid as that is what is going to happen mark my words. You have to look forward to the future to see what is happing in Europe. Belgium has realised and started to send people back from the camps and communities they set up because a lot of towns there are mostly muslims !!! Great post,my thoughts exactly.
It's just a matter of time before one or more of them gets lucky with a bomb plot. Then everyone will wake up and smell the coffee.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.