RayC

The headline to this thread is accurate. She's delusional and potentially dangerous.

Impossible to know

I agree that it is not easy for young people in the UK (or Europe) nowadays. Who can blame them looking elsewhere for better prospects? However, I'm certain that 250,000 pure-blood indigenous Brits didn't leave the UK last year for the simple reason that there are probably no more than +/-250 indigenous Brits left in total.

Unemployment rates fell over the period 1997 - 2010 suggesting that high net migration to the UK was needed to fill Labour market shortages. "Immigration under Labour quite literally changed the face of Britain". If that statement is taken literally, then my response is "And?" So there are probably more Slavic faces to be seen? What's the problem?

(I replied to your point about the Blair/ Brown decision in my last post.) What problems did this influx of Poles and Eastern Europeans create? They came to fill vacancies in the UK labour market. Biggest problem I recall reading about was that some of them liked to sit on a park bench and have a beer at the end of a day's work. Apparently, this offended the aesthetic sensitivity of some locals.

More importantly, that's what the law says

All EU citizens and their family members have the right to move and reside freely within the EU. This fundamental right is established by Article 21 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The conditions for the exercise of the right of free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States by EU citizens and their family members are set out in the Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC. Austria and Germany invoked a provision in the EU legislation which allowed member states to restrict access to their labour markets for up to 7 years. So yes I stand (partially) corrected: The Blair/ Brown and coalition governments could have restricted Polish migration temporarily but no, it has everything to do with being part of the EU.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? Poles represented the biggest immigrant group among all EU nationals at that time. Therefore, It's hardly surprising that they should show up as the biggest single group of EU nationals claiming child benefit. EU Regulations state that when living in another EU state, all EU nationals must be treated in the same way as native-born citizens. Therefore, a Briton living in Poland at that time with kids in the UK would have been entitled to claim child benefit in Poland in accordance with Polish law in exactly the same way as a locally-born Pole. I don't see any problems with any of the above. I also don't see why you think that the figures you present are not consistent with my claim that the majority of Poles in the UK were young, single men? In 2009 there were an estimated +/-530k Poles living in the UK. Child Benefit claimed by Poles was for 38k children living outside the UK. This represents 7% of the total number of Poles living in the UK at the time. Even allowing for the fact that some Poles had been in the UK for many years, that there were some Polish couples living together in the UK (and therefore not represented in your figures), that there were some married, childless individuals, that some Poles who were entitled to claim did not and making the unrealistic assumption that the Poles who did claim child benefit had one, and only only one child. There were also, of course, young, single Polish women working in the UK, however, I'd suggest that even allowing for all that you'd be hard pressed to raise that 7% figure to over 50%: Hardly compelling evidence to negate my proposition that most of the Polish immigrants were young, single men.

The origin (catalyst) for the increase in legal immigration in the noughties was not policy decisions made by Blair or Brown, but the increase in the membership of the EU. Nationals of the new EU member states, notably Poles, Bulgarians and Romanians came to the UK to fill vacancies in the construction and associated industries (plumbing especially) and agricultural sector. Significant numbers of EU nationals also came to work in the hospitality industries, particularly in London. Many (most?) of these workers were single men. Many (most?) were transient. They worked, they saved money and they returned to their homelands. There was little strain placed on existing resources and/or infrastructure. Those who did bring families largely settled and contributed to the economy and community. The objections to their presence were, at best, of the 'Victor Meldrew/ Grumpy Old Men' variety i.e. nothing better to do than moan about something or, at worst, purely xenophobic. Contrast the situation then and now and tell me what system worked best for workers, companies and the UK state. Agreed. That will be difficult to prove That will affect genuine refugees as well as illegal economic migrants as it is impossible to seek asylum from outside of the UK. Or simply revert to the previous system whereby asylum seekers could apply at UK consulates and embassies. Agreed We agree that Merkel's decision was a disaster, so yes to that extent, blame the politicians. Having made the decision what action could have been taken? Tell Germany that you caused the problem, you solve it? Even Europe's biggest economy would struggle to accommodate 1.2m new arrivals (and a steady continuous stream of others). There would almost certainly have been an economic crisis in the country and, more probably, large-scale social unrest. How would that have been in the UK's or any other Western European nations' interest? (irrespective of one's views about the EU). Again we (partially) agree. Merkel's decision was the catalyst for today's situation and many people foresaw huge potential problems once the decision had been taken. To label these concerns, 'racist' was ridiculous, however, that was not my original point. (The fault was mine. I was not clear enough). The civil war in Syria started in 2011, the war in Afghanistan had been ongoing for some time, ISIS had been active for many years. All of that was known. There had been a steady stream of refugees up to that point but no one foresaw the mass movement of people in 2015. That was my point. Should Western governments have been better prepared? Although the timing and numbers could not have been predicted, scenarios could have been prepared and plans put in place. Perhaps that is true but one could use the same argument re the pandemic and the Ukraine war, and neither of those events were well-managed either. Perhaps Western politicians and governments are simply not very good or perhaps, major events such as these are just too difficult to manage effectively? The ECHR needs amending but leaving it will solve nothing in itself. It's a convenient peg to hang all the problems on. Whether Blair is called 'Sir' or not makes absolutely no difference. Good idea So should we opt out of any other international organisations and/or courts? Do we really want to become that insular? Once again, international organisations/ courts are a convenient peg to blame for the UK's problems. We left the jurisdiction of the EU in 2020 and that decision hasn't solved many problems, but has created a plethora of others Agreed Illegal migrants who have been refused asylum should be returned to their home countries. Returning illegal migrants to France without her approval is a non-starter, unless you want to start a diplomatic war with the EU. As with Brexit, there's no winners there but the UK will be the biggest loser. If the solution to the illegal migrant problem was as simple as throwing +/-£500m at it, then I'm sure that all other European nations would have done so. Agreed but easier said than done.

That's a foul in rugby😉

The formal titles in the UK were - and I believe still are - 'Association football' and 'Rugby football'. In the 19th century, Oxford University students invented the slang terms, 'soccer' and 'rugger' to differentiate the codes. 'Rugger' was widely used, 'soccer' didn't catch in the UK other than in the public schools and Oxford and Cambridge, but found favour in N. America and Australia.

I can't comment on the QT episode because I haven't watched QT in a long time. Illegal migrants from Africa and the Middle East cannot head to the US, which has its own problem with those coming from Central & South America: I'd suggest the main reason that Hungary, Poland and Russia do not have the same problem with illegal immigrants as the UK is that illegal immigrants have, at least, a smattering of English and awareness of the country which is probably not the case for the other three nations. In short, the UK is a more attractive destination. Imo the domestic policies of Hungary, Poland and Russia have little bearing on the matter. There were 110k applications for asylum in the UK in the year to June 2025, of which +/-50% were illegal immigrants. It's true that immigrants are disproportionately represented in crime statistics but - like native-born Brits - only a tiny proportion of the population of +/-50k are criminals. The UK has a tradition dating back centuries of offering sanctuary to the persecuted. Imo it is something to be proud of. Having said that, 110k applications/year is a lot and the UK cannot continue to grant residency in such large numbers indefinitely. What to do? As I said previously, overhaul the asylum system. Will it cure the illegal migrant problem? Almost certainly not but it might help.

Ah, things are now crystal clear. The reason why you are so staunchly anti-EU is that you have a completely mistaken understanding of its' purpose.

Another conclusion based on an unbiased, detailed analysis of the data🤦

It's clear that much needs to change wrt how asylum claims are dealt with: Asylum is meant for those fleeing persecution or war, not those seeking to immigrate irrespective of whether they are criminals or decent individuals. Imo the catalyst for the current problem can be traced back to 2015. If you recall, an estimated 1.3m people - mainly fleeing from ISIS - arrived in Europe seeking asylum. Although impossible to prove, I don't doubt that the vast majority were genuine. However, Europe was completely unprepared to deal with such numbers. TBF hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it is easy to blame politicians for their lack of planning, but how many of us foresaw the scale of the problem before then and how many of us had any semblance of a workable plan for dealing with it? Having said all that, imo the single most foolhardy policy subsequently implemented was Merkel's well-meaning but disastrous decision to effectively throw open Germany's door to all-comers. This sent the wrong message and is the main reason why illegal immigrants continue to arrive in their droves in Greece, Italy and Turkey and move across Europe. We are where we are so what to do next? Frankly, I have little idea. Within the UK, an overhaul of the asylum system (processes, procedures and perhaps, criteria) is clearly needed: It is no longer fit for purpose. In a similar vein, the ECHR may no longer be fit for purpose and it also needs an overhaul, however, neither redefining the UK asylum processes and/or leaving the ECHR will magically stop the boats overnight. Likewise, other measures e.g. making facilities in the UK harsher for the illegal arrivals may have some effect, but that does seem unfair on genuine refugees. Sending the illegal migrants back to France and effectively saying, 'Your problem' is a knee jerk reaction, which will simply poison relations between France/ the EU and the UK, and most probably lead to an increase - not a decrease - in the number of attempted crossings as France and the EU countries will make no attempt to intercept individuals en route to the UK. I strongly believe that a coordinated Europe-wide solution(s) is needed but I have no idea what that/ they look like.

The NFL has been trying to go international for 40+ years. They visit Europe a few times per year. Being broad-minded sports lovers, we pop along every time in the hope that we have missed something, and that this sport is not as boring as it proved to be on previous visits. Sadly, we inevitably leave disappointed although TBF the half-time entertainment is often good. Let's face it, American 'football' is just an inferior version of Rugby which, in turn, is just a bastardised version of football invented by those not skilful enough to play the 'beautiful game'.

Yes, there is corruption in Ukraine. And how does that excuse Russia's invasion?

How on earth is Ukraine's collaboration with Nazi Germany relevant to today's conflict? The excuse that Putin wants to rid Ukraine of Nazis is ridiculous. If he is that disgusted by the presence of right-wing extremists, he should begin by ridding his own nation of them.

Thanks but I have no desire to watch any clips which depict an aggressor subjugate a smaller, sovereign neighbour.

Agreed. Individuals used to be able to seek asylum at our overseas embassies and consulates but this practice was discontinued (by Johnson I think?) There may have been security issues, but I imagine it was done in the name of efficiency and to provide a better service for customers! A bit like how contracting out passport renewal at the embassy and consulates has made things so much better and easier for all of us customers 🤔😂

I think that it's a case of keep your friends close and your enemies closer

That's it in a nutshell, Trans. Hope that you're well?

The data probably doesn't exist to support the following, but I would think that very few asylum seekers meet the requirements to apply for legal immigration. As it is impossible to apply for asylum outside of the UK, they have no choice but to arrive illegally. If these individuals are then automatically excluded from applying for asylum that effectively closes all avenues to those seeking asylum in the UK.

The current bunch of EU and UK politicians might be poor but they are not totally economically illiterate.

That's a fair enough explanation re the length of the videos and can be seen as helpful however, my point holds: Links are usually provided to support a proposition, not for further investigation. Personally, I am unlikely to read/ view anything much more than 10 mins in length but that is obviously down to the individual. Putin has said many things, most of which are lies. Now that he has reduced much of Ukraine to rubble, he probably doesn't have any objection to the EU picking up the bill for reconstruction! However, the idea that he had no objection to Ukraine joining the EU prior to the outbreak of war is contradicted by the facts: Putin refused to accept that Ukraine saw its economic future with the West (the EU). In particular, Putin's refusal to allow the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement to be signed was the catalyst for the events of 2014 and thereafter. I am no fan of v.d. Leyen but she cannot be held responsible for the sins of her father (if that's what they are). Once again, you refuse to let the facts get in the way of your judgement: When v.d Leyen was German Defence Minister, she was heavily criticised for appearing to run down German defence forces. More pertinently, she refused to supply arms to Ukraine. Hardly the actions of an anti-Russian military hawk. The EU has been forced to reappraise its military and security spending in the light of the actions of Putin (and Trump). However, unfortunately, many EU states are still reluctant to increase defence spending significantly. Hardly the actions of an "aggressive military alliance". If v.d. Leyen herself has suddenly morphed into a defence hawk, it is directly because of Putin's invasion of Ukraine and Trump's withdrawal of support for NATO. Unfortunately, Mr Krainer's analysis may be correct? I have made no comment to date on the position on the battleground or the military strategy and tactics employed and I'm not going to start now. The idea of watching 20+ mins of Yanis Varoufakis pontificate fills me with horror. His one claim to fame is that while in office he bankrupted his nation. Quite why anyone takes him seriously is beyond me.