6 hours ago, superal said:

The illegal asylum seekers are using that tab to seek permission to stay in the UK . They are at best economic migrants who are taking advantage of the soft government . Do we see this happening in Russia , USA , Poland or Hungry etc ? No because those countries take care of their own first . Illegal invaders bypass all of the qualifications to gain entry . How many are law breakers ? The QT programme has incited outrage from many a Brit because they were clearly biased against Reform / Yusuf  and giving 2 illegals the right to air time . The BBC were a bastion of the UK broadcasters but not any more . 

The UK including both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are suffering from the over population of illegals.

 

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.

7 hours ago, superal said:

The UK including both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are suffering from the over population of illegals.

The UK (including Northern Ireland) and The Republic of Ireland. 

 

I entirely agree with your point, but it is important to note that the Republic of Ireland, whilst facing the same problem, is a seperate country. That is a rabbit hole which we don't want to go down!

10 hours ago, RayC said:

 

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 origin of large scale immigration into the UK is down to Blair and Brown, when, as they "rubbed British noses in diversity", immigration doubled from 327k in 1997 to 605k in 2010. The Conservatives failed to follow their own election promises, with averages up from 2010 -2020 at a mean 730k/year, followed by the mad Boris jump in 2023 - another initially powerful but eventual failure, as a politician.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283599/immigration-to-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/?srsltid=AfmBOoopUlBmzt8cJwHQi0JYEf2scv-9SRHMYP0HsBe44z7De--TyxOB

 

It is clear that much needs to change w.r.t. how asylum claims are dealt with. Asylum claims should not be considered for anyone who has knowingly and intentionally discarded their passport and/or used transport sold to them by criminal or private enterprises. For those without ID, they should apply at temporary UK centres set up in France, or other foreign countries, first. Better vetting for all visas is also needed, especially from a national security aspect. 

 

Yes, a catalyst for much of the increased problem over the last 10 years, can indeed be traced back to 2015, after 1.2m people flooded into Germany, when Mutti Merkel said "wir schaffen das". It didn't take long for the Germans to balk, after the sexual attacks in Cologne station, then ask much of the rest of Europe to accept many more of these migrants - that just highlighted who really ran the EU - so it is very easy to blame politicians. I think that many of us foresaw a huge problem immediately but, of course, that opinion seemed to be considered racist and politically incorrect to say so - the usual nonsense. So, many years after the trouble in Syria, it seems that many migrants remain intent on testing this open door theory today, and as far as they can into the future.

 

What to do next? Well, the UK is out of the EU, so ECHR membership should be binned, along with Blair's knighthood. A new UK HR Bill should be put into place - UK sovereign decisions should not be quashed by judges in Strasbourg. Existing UK immigration laws should be fully enforced. Illegal migrants should be returned to their home countries or back to France (or wherever) - France is obviously happy to accept our 500M quid plus offload migrants at the same time. The EU can't even lead a conga line.

 

Genuine refugees should be protected and sheltered but they need to be properly identified first. There are too many dangerous criminals arriving in the UK and Europe, as they have already demonstrated, to the point of murder. That has to stop.  

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

 

The origin of large scale immigration into the UK is down to Blair and Brown, when, as they "rubbed British noses in diversity", immigration doubled from 327k in 1997 to 605k in 2010. The Conservatives failed to follow their own election promises, with averages up from 2010 -2020 at a mean 730k/year, followed by the mad Boris jump in 2023 - another initially powerful but eventual failure, as a politician.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283599/immigration-to-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/?srsltid=AfmBOoopUlBmzt8cJwHQi0JYEf2scv-9SRHMYP0HsBe44z7De--TyxOB

 

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.

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

It is clear that much needs to change w.r.t. how asylum claims are dealt with.

 

Agreed.

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

Asylum claims should not be considered for anyone who has knowingly and intentionally discarded their passport

 

That will be difficult to prove

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

and/or used transport sold to them by criminal or private enterprises.

 

That will affect genuine refugees as well as illegal economic migrants as it is impossible to seek asylum from outside of the UK.

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

For those without ID, they should apply at temporary UK centres set up in France, or other foreign countries, first.

 

Or simply revert to the previous system whereby asylum seekers could apply at UK consulates and embassies.

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Better vetting for all visas is also needed, especially from a national security aspect. 

 

Agreed

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

Yes, a catalyst for much of the increased problem over the last 10 years, can indeed be traced back to 2015, after 1.2m people flooded into Germany, when Mutti Merkel said "wir schaffen das". It didn't take long for the Germans to balk, after the sexual attacks in Cologne station, then ask much of the rest of Europe to accept many more of these migrants - that just highlighted who really ran the EU - so it is very easy to blame politicians.

 

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).

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I think that many of us foresaw a huge problem immediately but, of course, that opinion seemed to be considered racist and politically incorrect to say so - the usual nonsense. So, many years after the trouble in Syria, it seems that many migrants remain intent on testing this open door theory today, and as far as they can into the future.

 

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?

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

What to do next? Well, the UK is out of the EU, so ECHR membership should be binned, along with Blair's knighthood.

 

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.

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

A new UK HR Bill should be put into place

 

Good idea

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

- UK sovereign decisions should not be quashed by judges in Strasbourg.

 

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 

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

Existing UK immigration laws should be fully enforced.

 

Agreed 

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

Illegal migrants should be returned to their home countries or back to France (or wherever) - France is obviously happy to accept our 500M quid plus offload migrants at the same time. The EU can't even lead a conga line.

 

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.

 

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

Genuine refugees should be protected and sheltered but they need to be properly identified first.

There are too many dangerous criminals arriving in the UK and Europe, as they have already demonstrated, to the point of murder. That has to stop.  

 

 

Agreed but easier said than done.

Jack Straw regrets opening door to Eastern Europe migrants

Labour relied on research suggesting 13,000 migrants a year would arrive.

But the influx was much larger than expected and contributed to net migration rising above 200,000 a year.

Unlike France and Germany, which did not give migrants from the ten countries which joined the EU in May 2004 full access to their labour market until 2011, the then Labour government did not insist on any transitional controls.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-24924219

Nothing to do with being part of the EU

It was an open door policy decided by Tony Blair Labour Govt

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

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.

Many (most?) of these workers were single men.

Appendix: Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit awards in respect of children resident in other EEA countries
Child Benefit claims under EC Regulation 883/2004 in respect of children living in another EEA member state (or Switzerland) Page 12
In 2009 50,586 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 37,941 for the rest of the EU 12,645 children

In 2010 41,296 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 28,760 for the rest of the EU 12,536

In 2011 40,635 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 27,018 for the rest of the EU 13,617

In 2012 40,251 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 25,623 for the rest of the EU 14,628

In 2012 40,171 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 25,659 for the rest of the EU 14,512

In 2013 34,268 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 22,093 for the rest of the EU 12,535

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06561/#fullreport

Child Tax Credit contains several elements. The maximum value of each is listed below but the amount you get depends on your income. Element Family element (one per family) Family element, baby addition (paid to families with a child under one year old on top of family element) Child element (including those under one year old, paid for each child) Annual amount 2009-2010 (£) 545 545 2,235 Disabled child element (paid in addition to the child element) 2,670 Severely disabled child element (paid in addition to the child and disability elements) 1,075
Child benefit in 2009 was paid at £20.30 per week for 1st child and £13.40 per week for any additional children
as we can see in 2009 75% of all Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit awards in respect of children resident in other EEA countries were paid to Poland

47 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Many (most?) of these workers were single men.

Appendix: Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit awards in respect of children resident in other EEA countries
Child Benefit claims under EC Regulation 883/2004 in respect of children living in another EEA member state (or Switzerland) Page 12
In 2009 50,586 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 37,941 for the rest of the EU 12,645 children

In 2010 41,296 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 28,760 for the rest of the EU 12,536

In 2011 40,635 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 27,018 for the rest of the EU 13,617

In 2012 40,251 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 25,623 for the rest of the EU 14,628

In 2012 40,171 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 25,659 for the rest of the EU 14,512

In 2013 34,268 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 22,093 for the rest of the EU 12,535

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06561/#fullreport

Child Tax Credit contains several elements. The maximum value of each is listed below but the amount you get depends on your income. Element Family element (one per family) Family element, baby addition (paid to families with a child under one year old on top of family element) Child element (including those under one year old, paid for each child) Annual amount 2009-2010 (£) 545 545 2,235 Disabled child element (paid in addition to the child element) 2,670 Severely disabled child element (paid in addition to the child and disability elements) 1,075
Child benefit in 2009 was paid at £20.30 per week for 1st child and £13.40 per week for any additional children
as we can see in 2009 75% of all Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit awards in respect of children resident in other EEA countries were paid to Poland

 

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.

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

Many (most?) of these workers were single men.

Appendix: Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit awards in respect of children resident in other EEA countries
Child Benefit claims under EC Regulation 883/2004 in respect of children living in another EEA member state (or Switzerland) Page 12
In 2009 50,586 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 37,941 for the rest of the EU 12,645 children

In 2010 41,296 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 28,760 for the rest of the EU 12,536

In 2011 40,635 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 27,018 for the rest of the EU 13,617

In 2012 40,251 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 25,623 for the rest of the EU 14,628

In 2012 40,171 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 25,659 for the rest of the EU 14,512

In 2013 34,268 children living outside the UK but within the EU received Child Benefit and Child Tax Credits Number of Children for Poland 22,093 for the rest of the EU 12,535

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06561/#fullreport

Child Tax Credit contains several elements. The maximum value of each is listed below but the amount you get depends on your income. Element Family element (one per family) Family element, baby addition (paid to families with a child under one year old on top of family element) Child element (including those under one year old, paid for each child) Annual amount 2009-2010 (£) 545 545 2,235 Disabled child element (paid in addition to the child element) 2,670 Severely disabled child element (paid in addition to the child and disability elements) 1,075
Child benefit in 2009 was paid at £20.30 per week for 1st child and £13.40 per week for any additional children
as we can see in 2009 75% of all Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit awards in respect of children resident in other EEA countries were paid to Poland

 

  I spoke to a Polish guy working in the UK who got child benefits for his child in Poland 

He said that he pays UK taxes and hes entitled to that benefit .

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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.

In 2004, there were an estimated 94,000 Polish-born residents.

By 2009, this figure had risen to an estimated 529,000. 

This growth was a direct result of Poland joining the European Union in May 2004, which granted Polish nationals the right to live and work in the UK (the UK was one of only three existing EU member states to open its labor market immediately). The increase between 2004 and 2009 represents a more than five-fold increase, leading to a nearly tenfold increase by 2011/2012 when the population reached nearly 600,000. 

in 2009 75% of all Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit awards in respect of children resident in other EEA countries were paid to Poland

You posted earlier that 

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.

Clearly that is incorrect as we know now that it was a result of Tony Blair open door choice in 2004

where they were thinking only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come to the UK

1 hour ago, vinny41 said:

Jack Straw regrets opening door to Eastern Europe migrants

Labour relied on research suggesting 13,000 migrants a year would arrive.

But the influx was much larger than expected and contributed to net migration rising above 200,000 a year.

Unlike France and Germany, which did not give migrants from the ten countries which joined the EU in May 2004 full access to their labour market until 2011, the then Labour government did not insist on any transitional controls.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-24924219

Nothing to do with being part of the EU

It was an open door policy decided by Tony Blair Labour Govt

 

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.

 

13 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  I spoke to a Polish guy working in the UK who got child benefits for his child in Poland 

He said that he pays UK taxes and hes entitled to that benefit .

 

More importantly, that's what the law says

7 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

In 2004, there were an estimated 94,000 Polish-born residents.

By 2009, this figure had risen to an estimated 529,000. 

This growth was a direct result of Poland joining the European Union in May 2004, which granted Polish nationals the right to live and work in the UK (the UK was one of only three existing EU member states to open its labor market immediately). The increase between 2004 and 2009 represents a more than five-fold increase, leading to a nearly tenfold increase by 2011/2012 when the population reached nearly 600,000. 

in 2009 75% of all Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit awards in respect of children resident in other EEA countries were paid to Poland

You posted earlier that 

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.

Clearly that is incorrect as we know now that it was a result of Tony Blair open door choice in 2004

where they were thinking only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come to the UK

 

(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.

18 hours ago, JAG said:

The UK (including Northern Ireland) and The Republic of Ireland. 

 

I entirely agree with your point, but it is important to note that the Republic of Ireland, whilst facing the same problem, is a seperate country. That is a rabbit hole which we don't want to go down!

Part of my mentioning the Republic of Ireland was that illegals are entering the R.O.I. and then travelling to N.I. where they can cross to the mainland Liverpool and no immigration checkpoint .

26 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

(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.

 

Blair and EU membership enabled the first stage of high immigration.

 

From the link at foot:00

 

Put into historical context, Labour’s reforms were an unprecedented policy reversal. With 2.5m foreign-born workers added to the population since 1997 and net migration averaging 200,000 per year between 1997 and 2010 – five times higher than under the previous administration government of 1990-1996 – immigration under Labour quite literally changed the face  of Britain.

 

https://theconversation.com/how-new-labour-made-britain-into-a-migration-state-85472

18 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

 

The origin of large scale immigration into the UK is down to Blair and Brown, when, as they "rubbed British noses in diversity", immigration doubled from 327k in 1997 to 605k in 2010. The Conservatives failed to follow their own election promises, with averages up from 2010 -2020 at a mean 730k/year, followed by the mad Boris jump in 2023 - another initially powerful but eventual failure, as a politician.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283599/immigration-to-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/?srsltid=AfmBOoopUlBmzt8cJwHQi0JYEf2scv-9SRHMYP0HsBe44z7De--TyxOB

 

It is clear that much needs to change w.r.t. how asylum claims are dealt with. Asylum claims should not be considered for anyone who has knowingly and intentionally discarded their passport and/or used transport sold to them by criminal or private enterprises. For those without ID, they should apply at temporary UK centres set up in France, or other foreign countries, first. Better vetting for all visas is also needed, especially from a national security aspect. 

 

Yes, a catalyst for much of the increased problem over the last 10 years, can indeed be traced back to 2015, after 1.2m people flooded into Germany, when Mutti Merkel said "wir schaffen das". It didn't take long for the Germans to balk, after the sexual attacks in Cologne station, then ask much of the rest of Europe to accept many more of these migrants - that just highlighted who really ran the EU - so it is very easy to blame politicians. I think that many of us foresaw a huge problem immediately but, of course, that opinion seemed to be considered racist and politically incorrect to say so - the usual nonsense. So, many years after the trouble in Syria, it seems that many migrants remain intent on testing this open door theory today, and as far as they can into the future.

 

What to do next? Well, the UK is out of the EU, so ECHR membership should be binned, along with Blair's knighthood. A new UK HR Bill should be put into place - UK sovereign decisions should not be quashed by judges in Strasbourg. Existing UK immigration laws should be fully enforced. Illegal migrants should be returned to their home countries or back to France (or wherever) - France is obviously happy to accept our 500M quid plus offload migrants at the same time. The EU can't even lead a conga line.

 

Genuine refugees should be protected and sheltered but they need to be properly identified first. There are too many dangerous criminals arriving in the UK and Europe, as they have already demonstrated, to the point of murder. That has to stop.  

 

I agree . No passport or I.D. = no consideration for asylum . These asylum seekers make an application having been briefed by a lawyer of African , Indian or Muslim  background . These lawyers are making big money acting for illegals asylum applications and appeals . It takes anything from 6 months to a year to process applications and if it is denied an appeal is made and the UK government having to give living support . 

A governments priority action is to take care of its fellow countrymen first . Clearly not happening .

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Blair and EU membership enabled the first stage of high immigration.

 

From the link at foot:00

 

Put into historical context, Labour’s reforms were an unprecedented policy reversal. With 2.5m foreign-born workers added to the population since 1997 and net migration averaging 200,000 per year between 1997 and 2010 – five times higher than under the previous administration government of 1990-1996 – immigration under Labour quite literally changed the face  of Britain.

 

https://theconversation.com/how-new-labour-made-britain-into-a-migration-state-85472

No wonder 250,000 UK indigenous emigrated last year . Having your own home and raising a family in the UK is almost beyond the reach of most young people . Shame on the UK governments .

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Blair and EU membership enabled the first stage of high immigration.

 

From the link at foot:00

 

Put into historical context, Labour’s reforms were an unprecedented policy reversal. With 2.5m foreign-born workers added to the population since 1997 and net migration averaging 200,000 per year between 1997 and 2010 – five times higher than under the previous administration government of 1990-1996 – immigration under Labour quite literally changed the face  of Britain.

 

https://theconversation.com/how-new-labour-made-britain-into-a-migration-state-85472

 

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?

21 minutes ago, superal said:

No wonder 250,000 UK indigenous emigrated last year . Having your own home and raising a family in the UK is almost beyond the reach of most young people . Shame on the UK governments .

 

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.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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.

true

 

Not everybody wants Reform or Trumps wannabee w*nker Farage. Personally I think it would be a disaster for the country and they certainly will not be getting my vote.

55 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

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?

 

It fell slightly but still mainly stayed over 5%. There's no point in defending Blair & Co. Blair started the trend in large-scale immigration to a point far higher than necessary. The EU's "freedoms" favoured workers from economically less strong member states, like Poland, to work in the UK and make far more money than at home. Of course the Poles would take these opportunities but this drove wages for many jobs in the UK down. The bigger the EU became, the larger this imbalance was revealed. Recently, the pet "freedom of movement" pillar has effectively enabled economic migrants to travel from Corinth to Calais to then catch the next rubber duck across the Channel. The EU has a lot to answer for.    

19 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

Not everybody wants Reform or Trumps wannabee w*nker Farage. Personally I think it would be a disaster for the country and they certainly will not be getting my vote.

 

True but there are plenty enough that do want reform. Personally, I think it would be a disaster for the country if we don't get it.

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

True but there are plenty enough that do want reform. Personally, I think it would be a disaster for the country if we don't get it.

 I would be happy with some reform, but I certainly do not want Reform UK!  It would be a disaster and against everything that this country fought against in WW2.  

On 12/6/2025 at 9:52 AM, mikeymike100 said:

 

But this is nothing new, the BBC has been sliding left for 20 years, its now at tipping point!

Disagree. The BBC like the ABC in Australia have fully transitioned () to the 'progressive' woke left. They are nothing other than an activist mouthpiece disguised as news.

6 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 I would be happy with some reform, but I certainly do not want Reform UK!  It would be a disaster and against everything that this country fought against in WW2.  

 

What's the problem in particular? Or is it just Farage?

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

It fell slightly but still mainly stayed over 5%. There's no point in defending Blair & Co. Blair started the trend in large-scale immigration to a point far higher than necessary. The EU's "freedoms" favoured workers from economically less strong member states, like Poland, to work in the UK and make far more money than at home. Of course the Poles would take these opportunities but this drove wages for many jobs in the UK down. The bigger the EU became, the larger this imbalance was revealed. Recently, the pet "freedom of movement" pillar has effectively enabled economic migrants to travel from Corinth to Calais to then catch the next rubber duck across the Channel. The EU has a lot to answer for.    

 

The one thing that there is no point in doing is attempting to lay the blame for the UK woes at the feet of immigrants.

 

In the article which you provided a link to previously, Blair is quoted as saying, "I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation. You might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer." Blair was wrong about many things but he was spot-on here. Unless you reject free-market capitalism and adopt a planned economy model, then there is no alternative but to accept globalisation as a natural progression of capitalism and that includes immigration. The best that can be done is to try to manage it which is what Blair tried to do.

 

Blair did not " .. start the trend in large-scale immigration to a point far higher than necessary". The level was dictated by the market as was the rate of pay. It is the basic economic theory governing supply and demand. I will use my previous example here again. In the earlier noughties, there was a shortage of plumbers in the UK (and Belgium). If you could find one, it often took an age and a fortune to get an appointment. In short, there was an excess demand for plumbers. The enlargement of the EU helped solve this problem and plumber's rates fell. I experienced something similar during the period 1997 - 2010, although my situation was caused by the fear over Y2K (and then the subsequent investment in delayed programmes). My hourly rate was higher in the period 1997 - 2005 than it was from 2006 - 2010. As I said, it is a capitalist model: It's as simple as that.

 

If they keep their heads down and with a bit of planning, then I'd imagine that it is relatively easy for economic migrants to travel from Corinth to Calais as you suggest. However, what's the solution? Retract Schengen? Unlikely to happen, especially just to satisfy a non-member's wishes. There is already push-back against restrictions to Schengen which have been introduced.

 

https://www.brusselstimes.com/1868482/is-schengen-under-threat

 

 

On 12/6/2025 at 9:23 AM, superal said:

Thursday December 4 , BBC question time had an Immigration Special programme that was clearly an ambush on the political party Reforms Zia Yusuf who was told , only 2 minutes before the programme was going live on air , that there would be 2 illegal immigrants  ( small boat crossing from France ) in the audience and that they would be asking questions . All the other panelists were told the day before . Once again ( as I have said before on this forum ) the audience were biased against Yusuf and applauded the likes of the Green parties Polanski opinions . Indeed the QT presenter , Fiona Bruce , seemed to be making things difficult for Yusuf who was the only panelist who was speaking sense .

The BBC is supposed to have impartial views but is now under a lot of scrutiny as well as having a reputation for workplace bullying . Indeed the Beebs credibility has taken a downturn with a growing discontent from viewers with many refusing to pay for the TV licence .

I think it must be clear by now that all networks are partial. I don't think there's a such thing as impartial reporting anymore, every news outlet has bias, and to expect otherwise is naive at best. 

43 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I think it must be clear by now that all networks are partial. I don't think there's a such thing as impartial reporting anymore, every news outlet has bias, and to expect otherwise is naive at best. 

 I totally agree with you, however most networks/ news, are privately owned like CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC etc, the BBC is not privately owned.

It was Established by Royal Charter in 1927; governed by a BBC Board appointed by the UK government but operates with editorial independence. No shareholders or private owners—fully public service. So its owned by the British public.

As we all know  it is  funded  primarily from the UK TV licence fee (~£159/year per household, ~65% of £5.5B+ budget)

My point is it operates under the Royal Charter.

The Charter says in black-and-white (Article 6):

“The BBC must be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output... and must ensure that its programmes reflect impartiality, accuracy, and balance.”

It also explicitly requires:

• Due impartiality across all news and current affairs
• A broad range of views and voices
• No editorialising or favouring any political party or commercial interest

So legally, the BBC must be unbiased — it's not just a nice idea, it's written into the founding document that literally created the corporation.

 

BUT IT ISN'T!, as you also point out!

20 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The one thing that there is no point in doing is attempting to lay the blame for the UK woes at the feet of immigrants.

 

In the article which you provided a link to previously, Blair is quoted as saying, "I hear people say we have to stop and debate globalisation. You might as well debate whether autumn should follow summer." Blair was wrong about many things but he was spot-on here. Unless you reject free-market capitalism and adopt a planned economy model, then there is no alternative but to accept globalisation as a natural progression of capitalism and that includes immigration. The best that can be done is to try to manage it which is what Blair tried to do.

 

Blair did not " .. start the trend in large-scale immigration to a point far higher than necessary". The level was dictated by the market as was the rate of pay. It is the basic economic theory governing supply and demand. I will use my previous example here again. In the earlier noughties, there was a shortage of plumbers in the UK (and Belgium). If you could find one, it often took an age and a fortune to get an appointment. In short, there was an excess demand for plumbers. The enlargement of the EU helped solve this problem and plumber's rates fell. I experienced something similar during the period 1997 - 2010, although my situation was caused by the fear over Y2K (and then the subsequent investment in delayed programmes). My hourly rate was higher in the period 1997 - 2005 than it was from 2006 - 2010. As I said, it is a capitalist model: It's as simple as that.

 

If they keep their heads down and with a bit of planning, then I'd imagine that it is relatively easy for economic migrants to travel from Corinth to Calais as you suggest. However, what's the solution? Retract Schengen? Unlikely to happen, especially just to satisfy a non-member's wishes. There is already push-back against restrictions to Schengen which have been introduced.

 

https://www.brusselstimes.com/1868482/is-schengen-under-threat

 

 

 

Well I disagree with most of what you say there and if you take a minute, you will see that I have not blamed immigrants but rather most recent British governments, their so-called leaders, as well as the EU, of course. What's wrong with stopping and debating "globalization" (especially Blair's/your interpretation of it)? From the mess we have today it seems that a bit of caution (on many issues) might have saved a lot of the trouble we have now. Blair had his agenda and was keen to get on with it.

 

The first big jump in immigration is noticeable in 1997, the same year as Blair's win. The (later) plumber "shortage" was partly a result of trade skills training being reduced as Blair pushed for half of the country to go, instead, for obscure and third-rate degrees, offered by polytechnics, which were soon allowed to call themselves universities. Sufficient numbers of students should have been encouraged to continue with trades courses, as before. The bigger the EU became, the bigger the problems became for the UK. Much of Britain's industry was relocated elsewhere in the EU.

 

A partial solution to the Schengen issue would be for the EU to only allow free movement to those with an EU passport or Schengen Visa and passport - just like they should have been doing all along. Yes, that means passport checks.

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Well I disagree with most of what you say there and if you take a minute, you will see that I have not blamed immigrants but rather most recent British governments, their so-called leaders, as well as the EU, of course. What's wrong with stopping and debating "globalization" (especially Blair's/your interpretation of it)? From the mess we have today it seems that a bit of caution (on many issues) might have saved a lot of the trouble we have now. Blair had his agenda and was keen to get on with it.

 

How else to interpret your comments other than you believe (the level of) immigration to be a problem? If it isn't a problem then what are we discussing?

 

You clearly see EU freedom of movement (and Schengen?) as a negative. I see it/ them as a positive(s).

 

International trade has been growing since WW2. The Trade-to-GDP ratio has risen from 20% in 1995 to 31% in 2023 and continues to grow: There is nothing wrong with debating how to try to manage globalization, but it is pointless to imagine that it can be stopped unless you are prepared to live in a closed society like North Korea. Individuals like to consume products; companies like to sell products. Improvements in technology and transportation mean that distance is (largely) no longer a barrier to entry into a market. To misquote Blair, you might as well discuss how to stop summer following spring as how to stop globalization. Blair was just being realistic.

 

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

The first big jump in immigration is noticeable in 1997, the same year as Blair's win. The (later) plumber "shortage" was partly a result of trade skills training being reduced as Blair pushed for half of the country to go, instead, for obscure and third-rate degrees, offered by polytechnics, which were soon allowed to call themselves universities. Sufficient numbers of students should have been encouraged to continue with trades courses, as before. The bigger the EU became, the bigger the problems became for the UK. Much of Britain's industry was relocated elsewhere in the EU.

 

I agree with much of that. Like you, I believe the vast expansion of academic education to have been a mistake. An educated, skilled workforce should be viewed as a necessity but there are different types of education and skills. At the risk of offending any 'Media Studies' graduates, surely there is a limit to the number of producers of podcasts which we need?

 

However, to suggest that the decline of British industry was precipitated by a combination of Blair and the EU is incorrect. The decline in UK manufacturing occured long before Blair and the EU and was caused by a combination of factors, most notably, cheaper Asian imports - not much that could be done about that other than erect trade barriers - no discernable industrial strategy and chronic underinvestment. There was plenty that could have been done about the latter two influences - as (West) Germany demonstrated - but no government since Wilson's in he mid-60s made more than a token effort to do so.

 

14 hours ago, nauseus said:

A partial solution to the Schengen issue would be for the EU to only allow free movement to those with an EU passport or Schengen Visa and passport - just like they should have been doing all along. Yes, that means passport checks.

 

Restricting Schengen as you suggest would have little real effect on the numbers. The gangs transporting illegal immigrants overland would use EU licensed vehicles, so wouldn't be stopped. Those travelling as individuals would by-pass border controls - it is simply impossible to police all of Europe's internal borders. Those travelling in groups would be just as likely to be spotted in the city/ countryside as at the border.

 

Introducing passport checks would do little more than inconvenience legal workers and travellers.