| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| There were 40,000 seasonal work visas for migrants avaialable in 2022, and no doubt more for 2023 |
Or less, or double. There shouldn't be 'a number'. Farmers know what they'll need, it's no business of anyone else's.
| so by the time the locals have been skilled up, away from their life on benefits and anti depressants, then the crops will be in. |
Why stigmatise our ain folk? We don't wanna do it. End of.
| We could also get refugees to do the picking rather than send them to Rwanda, but then folks would complain that they were stealing our jobs...... |
No, they wouldn't, they'd be complaining about 40,000 new Britons. The whole point of Indonesians breezing in and breezing out is nobody even knew they were there.
| The real problem is that by sending off all our children to university, we have destroyed what used to be known as the "dignity of labour". For some reason which I can't fathom, barwork or barista are acceptable as, say, a university job (not a long term career) but strawberry picker is not. If the govt worked with farmers to put on free entry indie festivals for those that helped get the crop in, it would be a start, as young people like music, mud, tent sex and drugs. |
You're a real liberal, deep down, Wiley. Always knowing what people want, and if they don't, making 'em doing it anyway.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Or less, or double. There shouldn't be 'a number'. Farmers know what they'll need, it's no business of anyone else's. |
The way it works, is that farmers complain or lobby govt about labour shortages. The gov then issue a reasonable number of seasonal visas. Then it's down to the farmers to recruit Indonesian, Albanian, or British. It's a managed migration in and compulsorily out, rather than based on European workers having their free movement.
| You're a real liberal, deep down, Wiley. Always knowing what people want, and if they don't, making 'em doing it anyway. |
You don't create a new Dignity of Labour by sanctioning those that won't participate. I suggested giving students a chance to work and play during their longish summer holiday, as preferable to the alternatives. It may be stigmatising to argue that those on a life of benefits, as they have been signed off long term sick, will be unable to meet the challenge, but the only schemes that work, that I know of, are mega expensive. The reality is that trying to slot in those on long term benefits into any work at all, is a very costly business. Ortho says long term (the so called "future savings") it will save us all money by getting these folks off benefits. I really, really doubt it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
No, the way it works is that rich farmers want to become richer by farming mono-culturally; that is, rather than growing various crops they grow the single crop which makes the most money on their land. Problem with that is that the crop needs to be harvested in bulk and employees are expensive.
The solution is to employ thousands of foreigners at ten quid an hour and deduct five quid for accommodation, usually caravans. The government then looks after the health of the foreigners plus, if they remain, schooling, housing etc.
Then the farmers complain to the Daily Mail that “British people are lazy and don’t want to pick my strawberries even if I pay them ten pounds an hour.â€
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Other people similar to the rich farmers:
- the NHS
- local councils
- bus companies
- food industry
It’s interesting that these jobs were always the great propagandists for immigration, even in the fifties. It has always been easier for them to bring in cheaper workers from overseas rather than reform working methods or pay workers more money
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The way it works, is that farmers complain or lobby govt about labour shortages. |
They wouldn't if there wasn't.
| The gov then issue a reasonable number of seasonal visas. |
First of all they shouldn't have to. When did we decide to live in a country where somebody walks amidst his apricot trees in the springtime wondering whether the apricot lobby has the muscle to get ye olde apricot picking visa quota up a smidgeon this year. Secondly, you know perfectly well that 'reasonable' has nothing to do with it. I think 'politically feasible' are the words you're looking for.
| Then it's down to the farmers to recruit Indonesian, Albanian, or British. It's a managed migration in and compulsorily out, rather than based on European workers having their free movement. |
Oh, OK, if you say so.
| You don't create a new Dignity of Labour by sanctioning those that won't participate. |
As far as I know, people who don't participate will end up in gaol or with unpicked apricots.
| I suggested giving students a chance to work and play during their longish summer holiday, as preferable to the alternatives. |
This has been the situation ever since the Long Vacation Act of 1784. How's it going?
| It may be stigmatising to argue |
We try to avoid using such nebulous concepts here because they are routinely used to justify some agenda being advanced for quite other reasons. Not a single person has so far ever said, "I feel stigmatised," unless being coached by someone with a clipboard and an agenda."Emphasis on the first syllable, dearie."
| that those on a life of benefits, as they have been signed off long term sick, will be unable to meet the challenge, but the only schemes that work, that I know of, are mega expensive. The reality is that trying to slot in those on long term benefits into any work at all, is a very costly business. |
Thank goodness nobody here advocated it then.
| Ortho says long term (the so called "future savings") it will save us all money by getting these folks off benefits. I really, really doubt it. |
Ortho doesn't say this. Ortho says what you are saying. Some people currently influential in government circles are saying it and it may turn out to be true or false or something in between. Nobody knows.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
The big problem in international relations is that there is no supranational authority capable of keeping order so everything is either jaw-jaw or war-war. The nearest thing is regular talking shops where at least problems can be identified and peer pressure applied. The problem then is who's in (too many and it becomes unwieldy) and who's out (breeds resentment). The granddaddy of them all is the UN General Assembly which sort of deals with this by having a Security Council of five permanent members and five rotating ones.
It's pretty hopeless so states have been busy setting up their own mini-congeries. The first and still the chief one was the G6 -- US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Italy -- which immediately demonstrates one of the problems, what's Canada and Italy doing there? Political reasons. And where was Japan? So it became the G7. But this immediately rendered it less effective because now it was revealed as 'just' the big democracies. So Russia was invited along and it became the G8 but that didn't last long so they made it the G20 and invited all that was not sundry and the Top Shop was, sort of, open for business.
But just in case it might prove effective they have invited the Organisation of African Unity to become a permanent member. They might as well just announce to the world: "We can't do anything but we sure as hell can't be accused of being a toffee-nosed elite." Me, I'm a great believer in toffee-nosed elites.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
So the High Court has declared the Rwanda policy to be 'lawful'. But added a rider, "they must be individually assessed for suitability". Since this takes several years, it's business as usual.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | So the High Court has declared the Rwanda policy to be 'lawful'. But added a rider, "they must be individually assessed for suitability". Since this takes several years, it's business as usual. |
Yes, that means tons of additional casework for immigration officers, social workers (are they vulnerable?), doctors, medical experts (are they over 18, healthy enough?). Can Rwanda, a country without an NHS, provide for their medical needs), the police (have they been trafficked?), solicitors, lawyers and the courts? This is really good news for the whole industry. It's also great news for Rwanda, who have already received 120 million quid.
Wiley did tell Pritti it wasn't going to work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
By numbers
Arriving asylum seekers last year: 85,000 plus
Those going to Rwanda so far: 0
Numbers Rwanda say they are willing to accept per year: 100 approx
Actual failed asylum seekers, ie those found to not be fleeing persecution and removed back to their country of origin: 113
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
Still, such is the liberal outrage at this horrible Rwanda decision, it will be appealed. So it's going to be no removals till this has been heard. Likely after the next election!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
If it ever does get going, the 100-limitation will not be a factor as boat-crossers will be asked, as they stagger up the beach: "Do you want to go to Rwanda or be sent back to your country of origin?" YouGov in France (known as YouGurve over there) report the answers are currently running 99% in favour of the latter among would-be boat-crossers.
Whether France is their 'country of origin' for the purposes of the 1951 Refugees and Asylum-Seekers Convention has yet to be determined, judicially-speaking. YouGurve report 99% of French people ticked the "Not on votre nelly" box.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | If it ever does get going, the 100-limitation will not be a factor as boat-crossers will be asked, as they stagger up the beach: "Do you want to go to Rwanda or be sent back to your country of origin?" YouGov in France (known as YouGurve over there) report the answers are currently running 99% in favour of the latter among would-be boat-crossers.
Whether France is their 'country of origin' for the purposes of the 1951 Refugees and Asylum-Seekers Convention has yet to be determined, judicially-speaking. YouGurve report 99% of French people ticked the "Not on votre nelly" box. |
The problem being that to return the asylum seeker to their country of origin whilst unsafe is illegal. There is also no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. There was a system within the EU called the Dublin system under which EU nations agreed refugees could be sent back to their point of entry to the EU, that was to have their asylum claims processed. This was much hated by Greeks, Italians and Hungarians but liked by the rest of the EU. I wonder why? But as we left the EU....we can no longer do this. The French will simply say non and return them to Britain....we have Rwanda's agreement and she is willing to take a 100.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
In actual fact, even if we could renegotiate with the EU to become part of the Dublin system but remain outside the EU (what are the odds?), then you have to keep in mind that the Dublin agreement prioritises at the end of the process, the refugee is then sent to a country where they have family (family reunion). So, if they want the UK and have any sort of family (ie we have previously accepted a family member or, more likely, the family member travelled to Britain whilst there was free movement within the EU), it is still going to be Britain.........
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The problem being that to return the asylum seeker to their country of origin whilst unsafe is illegal. |
Possibly so but since 99% of the boat people are from Albania, Nigeria etc this should not prove a difficulty.
| There is also no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. |
It wasn't envisaged when the Basic Law was being laid down. Contrariwise (I would have thought) there is no obligation to treat people as either refugees or asylum-seekers if they are shopping around quite so blatantly.
| There was a system within the EU called the Dublin system under which EU nations agreed refugees could be sent back to their point of entry to the EU... |
The EU was trumpeting in Vienna last night, after the energy agreement, how effective the EU is in getting unanimous support for their decisions. What short memories they have.
| The French will simply say non and return them to Britain.... | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| but since 99% of the boat people |
Well we managed it 113 times last year. So the challenges might be greater than you think.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
