Ukrainians should just be given a three year stay in UK, no visa needed.

[Kendodd]

And they should be allowed to work, but not claim asylum.
And before people start jumping up and down 'they're not coming here, we're full up' minimal state support should be given to appease you lot. A network should be set up tso people with space, spare rooms etc can offer accommodation. Some of the people coming will be teachers, they can be supported in setting up informal or online schools for the children.
This is temporary, we are better than this. I know the Tories don't want it but they don't have to get over involved, individual people will step up and take people in. I know it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.

Yabu - No
Yanbu Let them come

And every employer requires eligibility to work in the U.K.

I can't hire anyone without that. Not that simple to just 'work' for some people. Would they even have brought over interview clothes with them?

@Zilla1

Was mildly surprised at Yvette Cooper? hand waving security checks when asked on R4 Today this morning. Instant admittance but security checks will just be able to happen quickly enough. Would be more impressed if they owned the consequences of what they propose though I suppose practicality and consistency doesn't need to be a feature of Loyal Opposition.

The 'consequences' you allude to basically only exist in your paranoid mind.

Again - look at Germany.

@labyrinthlaziness what do you mean as usual?! That was my second post.
I am not racist in pointing out that too much immigration is not a good thing so all governments have to balance it. Allowing uncontrolled immigration doesn't work because there are so many things to factor in. Just because you believe it's a good thing doesn't equate to that being a fact.

@GirlInACountrySong

And every employer requires eligibility to work in the U.K.

I can't hire anyone without that. Not that simple to just 'work' for some people. Would they even have brought over interview clothes with them?

Yes, lets focus on what's important.

We shouldn't let people fleeing a warzone come to a safe country and get a job because they aren't dressed nicely.

Just about everyone fleeing Ukraine will have brought their passport/drivers licence/ID card etc which will prove their nationality and if we had a system where the UK was accepting refugees and allowing them to work, that would prove their eligibility to work.

So what if they 'haven't brought interview clothes with them'.

Anti-muslim marches are not problems of immigration, they are problems of racist nationals
I agree.

That's from a study by a housing provider directly the census and ONS data. Overcrowding is not a problem of supply though, we are swimming in spare rooms, but they're being hoarded by people who are scared to move from a large home, people who have been taught owning a big home is aspirational, people who are in less popular areas etc etc. If we are overcrowded due to running out of space in the UK then why are housing lists and homelessness larger in London than Inverness? The problem is social and systemic, not a lack of space, and we can change the system and the society if we wanted to but at the heart of it no-one with the resources cares enough about homeless people or refugees.

@Kendodd
Loads and loads of people do and would.
I'm sure a few thousand people would do it for a couple of weeks. Until the conflict is resolved and the media coverage does down. Which could happen in a week or a month. Then will they still be happy with a family of strangers imposing on their space?

[quote pinkrhubarb]@labyrinthlaziness what do you mean as usual?! That was my second post.
I am not racist in pointing out that too much immigration is not a good thing so all governments have to balance it. Allowing uncontrolled immigration doesn't work because there are so many things to factor in. Just because you believe it's a good thing doesn't equate to that being a fact.[/quote]

1. By 'as usual' I meant the usual type of racist nonsense that is always in these threads, not from you specifically.

2. Referring to uncontrolled immigration rather than just immigration is a usual trope too - very few are in favour of no borders, certainly not me.

3. I believe in humanitarian responses to war. So you can shove your fictional 'uncpntrolled immigration' concept wherever you choose but that is not what I believe in because it is made up.

Only if they extend that offer to the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Yemen and anywhere else we've funded, supported, or been directly involved with militarily activities in.

.

@Kendodd

the reality is that we are more than “full up” with such a high rate of homelessness.

Well 1,000,000 EU citizens have left since Brexit and 150,000 people have received died from covid, I make that room for 1,150,000 people. Plus don't we have 1,000,000 job vacancies.
I have a spare room, I can take a couple. Loads and loads of people do and would.

It's a tad more complex than your body swap scenario. And is it going to be your voice over the tannoy hollering, "We've got a 150,000 covid corpses that need replacing with live bodies! Who's in?" You get an A* for empathy, however. Those who leave and die are constantly being replaced. The flux hasn't stopped. It's just changed: Fewer people from the EU more from elsewhere. Have you not noticed the influx of people from Hong Kong?

Why only Ukrainians? Did we allow 3 year stay with no checks to Yemen people or any other country? And how exactly do you expect them to live here? Who would pay for that? Do you believe all of them can easily work in UK with no language knowledge and earn enough to cover all the living costs?

Hahaha

no chance

The Brexit supporting, immigrant hating British public would never accept it.

The ‘we’re full’ mentality never fails to disgust me. If it was happening to us, if you were bombed and running with your children for your lives how would you feel if safe affluent countries said you couldn’t stay because someone else might not be genuine, or because you might use their healthcare system that you’d not paid into, or that you might have a religion not on the preferred list or that they were ‘full’? Put yourself in these people’s shoes for a second and find some bloody compassion.

@labyrinthlaziness Bit of a stretch to infer paranoia from my post. Perhaps says more about your preoccupations and I suspect I'd be more concerned if you agreed with me if that is your response to my post.

The interviewer asked the question. Yvette didn't say security checks weren't required and the notion they were was paranoid. She implied that security checks could be done so quickly as to not delay admittance nor require any contingencies. I'd have respected her if she'd said they weren't required and admittance should be instant. Or that they are required and here are the contingencies that would result. Saying that they can be done much more quickly and for much higher volumes than normal seemed hand-waving to me.

I suspect we will see a rapid shift from shows of support on social media, eg. knitting toys in Ukrainian colours, changing FB profile pictures, dedicating my daily cold water swim to the people of Ukraine, going to my local church to pray (fair enough, but you don't need to tell everyone) once people are asked to give up their spare rooms to refugees. We'll soon see if charity really does begin at home. Perhaps I'm cynical. But I'm honest enough to say that I would be able to do it for a few weeks, but not open ended for months or years. I don't think my DH would agree to it at all.

I hope that the refugees are welcomed, but the checks should be the same as for other refugees. We should do all we can to help financially.

@labyrinthlaziness

Merkel took the really dangerous migrants too, the ones Trump and Farage warned us all about.

But isn't Merkel's open door policy considered to have led to the rise of the far right? Didn't she welcome refugees in because Germany was short on labour at the time but then quickly shut the door again once they had enough and it wasn't popular any more:

Furthermore, once Germany’s willingness to accept refugees diminished, Merkel was instrumental in negotiating international treaties on the behalf of the EU to prevent further migration into Europe. Most notably, Merkel and the EU signed a treaty with Turkey’s President Erdogan to prevent refugees from entering the EU through Greece. Turkey would monitor its coastline to avert further refugee migration into Europe and admit rejected asylum seekers from Greece. In return, Erdogan would receive six billion euros for the care of refugees and a pledge from the EU that it would consider visa free EU entry for Turks. This deal with an increasingly repressive leader on the back of refugees can hardly be explained normatively. However, realism’s focus on power, security, and self-interest offers a rational for such agreement. Precisely, it was in the interest of Germany to prevent and discourage further refugees from taking a journey to the EU. With that goal in mind, there was no room for normative or humanitarian considerations (Funk, 2016: 290).

Even during the open door policy there were still concerns from refugee support groups in Germany:
Refugee support group Pro Asyl slammed what it labelled "detention centres in no-man's land" and charged that German power politics were being played out "on the backs of those in need of protection".

Wasn't the Christmas market bombing supposed to be by refugees? Can't find confirmation either way but this one that was foiled was by people seeking asylum - www.politico.eu/article/six-syrians-arrested-over-german-christmas-market-terror-plot-isil-essen-asylum/

Anyway I don't think Merkel was doing anything out the goodness of her heart - Germany needed the labour and they opened the doors, then the decision became less and less popular and they were quickly slammed shut - she wasn't going out on any limbs for refugees.

I'm not saying for one minute that we shouldn't take Ukranians in - taking Russian oligarchs property and housing them there is a brilliant idea (but one that would never happen under the tories). But we shouldn't be letting anyone in without checks IMO.

I think though letting people in for three years or some other sort of time period really, really doesn't work. They will be very settled here by then and then be kicked out to go back to live in a country that is potentially destroyed both physically and economically - not to mention possibly under occupation or Russian rule where they really may not be welcome. I think that's even more cruel than not taking people in the first place personally.

@GirlInACountrySong

And every employer requires eligibility to work in the U.K.

I can't hire anyone without that. Not that simple to just 'work' for some people. Would they even have brought over interview clothes with them?

Man, you live in a proper weird bubble you don't you?

Realistically, the best way to help them is to neighbouring states with as much money and practical support as we can to provide shelter and everything they need so they can return home once the war is over. The neighbouring states are far more culturally similar and are much nearer than travelling all the way to the UK.

^ this. It's stupid to bring people thousands of miles to a country which they don't know when this situation could be very temporary. The Ukrainian people want to fight, they will want to go back as soon as they can. Bringing lots of their young who may end up staying won't do much for the future of the country at all.

It's not about what as refugees they will or won't be able to do, it's not about money or being full. It's about doing the best for the people at this present time. If things go on longer then government policy will no doubt change.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you in theory OP but I do think there could be unforeseen issues with joe bloggs off the street taking in refugees without any real checks of their suitability. It is an admirable and decent thing to do, and I agree many people would be happy to do it in theory, but I think once the reality of having one or several strangers living in your spare room (who may well not speak English and/ or are incredibly traumatised) sets in, things might look very different.

Obviously there would be people who could accommodate refugees without issue but in your scenario where there’s a huge influx of people, and ‘usual process’ isn’t followed/ people are housed by random members of the public, I think there’s a danger of well meaning people suddenly baulking when reality sets in. And then what happens to the refugees in their spare room?

@gamerchick what's weird is when something is just taken from its context to try to shut someone up

Weird. But then it's mumsnet I shouldn't expect any better

Realistically the logical approach would be the bloody huge palaces and second houses the royal family and other extraordinarily rich people have.

Most of the seriously large properties are owned by overseas investors.

@bumblenbean this is mumsnet. People don't really THINK of how these people will feel
They are expected to arrive here, put in someone's spare room and just find a job

No thought for their feelings and emotions

Most of the U.K. population doesn’t own a spare bedroom.

I saw a stat the other day that 1/3 of UK homes have 2 or more spare bedrooms. I can't find the stat but it sounds about right.

We don't have an accommodation problem, we have an attitude problem.