European Union Vote

[Bosun]

Here, I write from experience; not quoting some stringer journalist whose aim in writing is to lend support to some party or another or to make headlines to sell newsprint, but from my own experience of over 30 years of voluntary work with the handicapped and disabled, and many more years than that of working within the inner city environs. And, as Fawlty said 'at the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious', the welfare state is there for the disabled and handicapped. But, the Welfare State has created an adverse effect; a social group, now in some cases of several generations, that completely and honestly believe that they have a god given right to money, housing and healthcare without having to contribute a thing in return. They are more than happy to live on the verges of society, on smuggled cigarettes and alcohol, who see crime as acceptable and producing children as an income. Prison to them, is, in the words of Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, 'an occupational hazard'. I have seen countless initiatives where money has been thrown at the problem with new housing, schools and social projects, but that hardcore bring it all back down to their level. And whilst they can have money and housing without giving anything back in return, nothing will change.

No-one can rightly have anything against migrants that come here to work, it's the migrants that come here, through Greece, then Italy, then Germany, then France because our benefits system and healthcare is generous and available that are the issue. It's why the Calais camps exist. They are not the working migrants that add to our cosmopolitan society, they are the ones that add to the pressures on the welfare state, housing and health care.

And I should add, I'm the son of a penniless refugee who landed on these shore in 1940, soaking wet with only the clothes he stood up in. After five years in the Armed Forces, he was naturalised British and adored his adopted home. He worked until he dropped and never recieved a penny in state benefits. So, it would be difficult for anyone to convince me that migrants and refugee's don't add anything to British society.

It's the type of migrant and refugee that counts. In the same way we currently have undesirable members of society who are a relentless drain on ever more scarce social resources.

 

[Fester]

Bosun,  one of the best posts I've ever read on this Forum 

[Hugo]

I was thinking exactly the same Fester and all Bosun's comments are sincere and based on his own experience.   His last paragraph saying  "It's the type of migrant and refugee that counts. In the same way we currently have undesirable members of society who are a relentless drain on ever more scarce social resources."  is especially relevant in this day and age.
The UK has an outstanding reputation for helping refugees in the past and as Bosun has said it's the type of refugee that counts.   I have a friend who was one of the last of the Winton children to be rescued and he integrated into society, learnt English and has worked all his wife.  In the primary school I was in there was a nice young girl there from Hungary who was a refugee from the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and she too easily integrated into society and quickly learnt English. 
I hope that the UK continues to accept genuine refugees and immigrants but it should be able to have more control over its borders than it does have now

[Ian]

One thing that I find dispiriting is the way the Brexit camp keeps reporting immigration figures but never emigration. A surprisingly large number leave the UK every year but that figure is never quoted. As an aside, Hugo, the UK has control over its borders and can refuse entry to anyone, if it so wishes. It's a dangerous myth that we have to let anyone - EU citizens included - into the UK. There are numerous grounds on which entrance to the UK can be refused to anyone and the EU’s 2004 citizenship directive makes it clear that the free movement of people within the EU is not an unqualified right and can be restricted on grounds of “public policy, public security or public health”.

So if we're letting people in that we ought not to it's not the fault of the EU: it's almost certainly ours. Since the current administration slashed the numbers of border control officers and custom officers, of course, it's a lot easier for miscreants to gain entry.

[Ian]

In terms of resource abuse, which is the main concern of many, I'm unsure as to how much if that goes on. Certainly, the gutter press, led by the DFM, delight in screaming headlines but the Glasgow Media Group has found that a very high proportion of those headlines were uncorroborated, misleading or - in some cases - simply made up. And that's one huge danger when we're dealing with a privately owned press, who seek only to sell papers through sensationalised reporting. The Guardian and Observer are the only two papers owned by a Trust, so can reasonably be expected to be free of the need to fabricate in order to make a profit (neither does, in fact).

I suspect most system abuse takes place with UK born and bred individuals. There's a proportion of the working-age population who prefer not to work, and whose social service case files make for fascinating, if depressing, reading. Every city has some of these people and unless society acts to break the vicious spiral of bad parenting producing amoral children who then become, in turn, bad parents the problem is only going to get worse. But we need an intelligent and considered approach to dealing with the problem and not a hysterical, knee-jerk reaction to more DFM headlines.

But it's also intriguing the way Farage's party never discusses the resident UK population who leech on the system. Could that possibly be because UKIP's entire persona is aimed at that group? From shots of the privately-educated Farage downing a pint to the various statements from party activists designed to engender hatred the entire UKIP machine is reminiscent of a more subtle version of the National Front.

[born2run]

Both Ian and Bosuns last posts were excellent. Can't argue with either 

[Hugo]

Ian, the statistics that the Government release are usually net migration figures and that will include people coming into the UK and people also leaving the UK.
The statistics for Sept 2015 show a net migration of 323,000  of which 172,000 is net migration from within Europe and 191,00 net migration outside of Europe.
Now 323,000 net migration is far greater than the tens of thousands that Cameron promised some time ago.   These figures are disputed anyway by MP's who believe that the true net migration figure is nearer one million and some MP's are obtaining information  under the FOI Act to enable them to disprove these Government figures.
As for control of our own Borders then you only have to watch TV programmes like Border Force UK to see how much control we actually have.  It would be unwise of me to say anything about the situation other than that it is dire.
We should be able to pick and choose who we want to come to the UK and should have a points system similar to Australia.   The UK will benefit from having  skilled English speaking immigrants and also keeping the doors open to genuine asylum seekers.

[Ian]

We do have the Australian points system, Hugo. This link is to a pdf which forms the basic manual for border control officers. But one thing is interesting: rather like accident lawyers there are lawyers who specialise in aiding immigrants to enter the UK.

Looking at the ONS stats for immigration it would appear that the sectors increasing the most are long term immigration for study and asylum seekers. But none of that changes the fact that we can refuse anyone. There may be many reasons why we don't, but we can if we wish to, and I seriously doubt that leaving the EU would make things any better in that regard.

[Ian]

Express, Telegraph and DFM censured for publishing lies regarding Brexit.

[DaveR]

Express, Telegraph and DFM censured for publishing lies regarding Brexit.

Somewhat ironically, your post is inaccurate as well, Ian! The newspapers have not been censured, but merely reported to IPSO by a Pro-EU organisation - the complaints against them have not even been investigated yet, let alone concluded.

[Ian]

The group reporting them is doing the censuring, Dave:  "It cites each one as failing to adhere to the clause about accuracy in the editors’ code of practice. InFacts argues that the papers have breached the code by failing to “take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.”  According to the group’s editor-in-chief, Hugo Dixon, if the papers had taken care, they would have known that they were contravening the code.

He is also calling on Ipso to fast-track the InFacts complaint because, if it is dealt with in the normal manner, there is a strong likelihood that any ruling would occur after the 23 June EU referendum vote.  For example, it took two months before Ipso announced its adjudication on the Buckingham Palace complaint about the Sun’s “Queen backs Brexit” front page."

IPSO often takes a long time to respond to complaints, despite that very often the evidence is pretty clear cut.

[DaveR]

The group reporting them is doing the censuring, Dave:  "It cites each one as failing to adhere to the clause about accuracy in the editors’ code of practice. InFacts argues that the papers have breached the code by failing to “take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.”  According to the group’s editor-in-chief, Hugo Dixon, if the papers had taken care, they would have known that they were contravening the code.

He is also calling on Ipso to fast-track the InFacts complaint because, if it is dealt with in the normal manner, there is a strong likelihood that any ruling would occur after the 23 June EU referendum vote.  For example, it took two months before Ipso announced its adjudication on the Buckingham Palace complaint about the Sun’s “Queen backs Brexit” front page."

IPSO often takes a long time to respond to complaints, despite that very often the evidence is pretty clear cut.

But they are openly a Pro-Eu group and, as such, hardly objective in the matter!

"InFacts is a journalistic enterprise making the fact-based case for Britain to remain in the European Union. "

[Ian]

Very true, but the Express and DFM in particular have a long track record of printing misleading stories. The Telegraph is pro-brexit, but offers substantially more objective reporting on the issue. But I'd always be wary of any privately-owned newspaper purporting to print the objective facts and nothing else.

[Ian]

The in-built delay IPSO has for ruling is also interesting: it would mean that a paper was free to print anything it wanted about the EU, secure in the knowledge that it wouldn't be picked up until after the vote.

[Fester]

I watched BBC Question Time last night, in an attempt to garner some real facts to help me, if (and it's a massive IF), I decide to cast a vote in the EU referendum.

It was an absolute shambles as every time an audience member asked a perfectly reasonable question, it was met by one of the panel members roaring back with what each of them described as FACTS.  These 'facts' were diametrically opposed and should not be allowed to be represented as such.
At one point, the UKIP panel member even said 'well, we will have to agree that we are using different facts'.   Unbelievable.

The most venerable Mr Dimbleby, presiding, seemed incredibly frustrated with what he was being asked to deal with.  He must be looking around the table at this shower, wondering what happened to the real 'statesmen' that he used to rub shoulders with.