To think Europen governments need to respond to immigration?

[Finlesswonder]

So the Netherlands is going to have a far right government.
Sweden has moved to the right.
Finland has shut its borders.
Countries that have traditionally been liberal are hardening and irrespective of the many issues listed its to do with immigration.

Ireland has seen violent protests last night following a series of stabbings.
In the UK we obviously had Brexit.

I think governments need to start responding to voters feelings on immigration as if they don't we will continue to see a general slide to the right in Europe, when actually these countries aren't right wing: it feels like a single issue is distorting the entire political landscape?

I see, you can't explain how the Rwanda scheme - affecting just 0.01% of those coming via the channel - would have worked.

So you have now changed the subject to what 'has worked' in some mysterious place. Although whatever that is presumably has significant differences to the UK context.

It feels like, when pushed, that you know the Rwanda scheme was hot air and nothing more.

I don't quite understand your reasons with that either, Eastern?

People are more likely to die in the boat crossing than be sent to Rwanda, so I can't see it being a deterent in any direct way. If someone is willing to risk drowning they aren't going to balk at a small chance of being sent to Rwanda.

In any case Rwanda is a corrupt country, or rather, the government is corrupt.

Perhaps some other scheme to take people elsewhere would work. Though I hate really to say "work" because it is likely to be pretty much what we see already in long term refugee camps in other places, which is not a pretty sight. Especially when they exist as generational communities.

But ultimately, there are many shit places in the world, and no nation is really in a position to either fix that, or to take all those people in.

I already have. I’m not repeating it again.

It doesn’t need to be there anyway, and probably can’t be, but another location can be done legally.

It’s not ‘mysterious’ maybe have a read up on what other countries do successfully.

You really haven't. You have said nothing about how the scheme would deter. You have simply said it will deter.

If you don't understand how the scheme would work, how can you have such faith in it?

And which are these other countries you claim have it sorted and, importantly, how do they compare to the UK situation?

The big issue is poverty, and the inequality the UK has. The Conservatives do not address it. Labour must to address the tensions of when people feel they cannot live well. I do remember real overt racists, the National Front, violent anti semitism (not just a few marches) and they always do better when times are difficult economically. Braverman I heartily disliked because she is an excellent example of someone who thinks, quite incorrectly, that her position protects her from these issues. Or that throwing asylum seekers under the bus will mean the wider population will not notice much larger legal migration. They will.

The UK has imo told itself self congratulatory fibs about its multicultural and diversity as a neutral thing. It's not all Paddington 2 in the UK.

But actually, look at terrorism and it is the white far right you need to worry about in the UK. Okay yes, you tell yourself they are racist nutters who are not mainstream. But racist nutters are frequently desperate to be that.

Eventually, unless we do address living standards a really palatable suit wearing, suitably well educated white racialist will come and capture a lot of people. We see it in France and the Netherlands, those sort of voters would not put a fag papers difference between an immigrant or a person who has been resident in their country legally and arrived many years ago.

An alternative location is the only real option within current international law but we may well see a change to that as more countries face the same migration pressures

There is just no detail in what you say.

I understand you want to believe in the simple stories this snake oil government is selling, but there is no credibility unless a plan can be explained.

Bloody hell it’s just too frustrating reading these posts continuously so I’m not that interested in explaining to you over and over

I know you feel great with it all but you won’t avoid migration pressures with insults and carry on.

It’s a reality. Some countries will be better placed others not.

These problems are to do with existing poverty and social inequality more than they are immigration IMHO

Ireland had a handful, less than 200, right wing 'protestors' and about three times that many scumbags who looted, robbed & burned the capital. The only thing we need to do with that lot is send them to prison. Why do you think UK, Belgium, Netherlands etc have people from other countries ? Because the Brits, the Belgians, the Dutch, the French etc went there first. Europe is built on the wealth extracted from other nations. The people who are here now are much kinder than we were when invaded their countries

You haven't explained anything.

If you had an explanation you would just explain it to me. It is not that you are not interested in explaining it to me, it is that you can't.

I have but it’s also the snide aggression so 🤷‍♂️ read up on what successful countries do instead.

I would understand more if you had a plan you were keen on and could tell us all about it but no it’s just head in the sand.

Yea. And if we don't address it we will have our own Geert Wilders and all these distinctions we draw about migration will get down to more basic ideas like skin colour and religion.

You haven't, you know you haven't and I know you haven't

There is no aggression, I have just pointed out that you can't explain how the Rwanda policy would work.

Honestly you don’t know much, when it comes to other systems

Google instead of asking me over and over. Read away 🙌

I love the way you post @EasternStandard , you're really funny

Do I not know much? I can tell you know loads, it's a shame you're not going to tell us all. You could really educate people with all your knowledge.

Oh ok that’s nice I’m pleased for you

Really you can do it without me. You can learn by yourself. Google and read 😀

Big old internet there for you. Good luck.

I just wondered if you could explain how it would work. And you can't. And that's absolutely fine.

I have already read up on it enough to be able to tell you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Of course 🙌

All your solutions have been grand. Anyway stop getting so annoyed I won’t ’explain to you’ it’s worse than a child. Go be free… Learn from other reading

It isn't that you won't - you clearly can't.

Honestly it’s just you. You’re too off putting. I’m hoping you’ll get the message.. Google is that way ->

Yes and no?

Social democracies with a lot of socialist supports typically have small, relatively stable populations, and there is an expectation of almost everyone working. For example mums, there may be good leave arrangements but what you don't see, except among the few ultra wealthy, are women who stay home with their kids. High taxes require high productivity.

But once you start upping the portion of the population who can't work or need extra support, or erode social pressures that make people feel obligated to work, or create social divisions where people don't have a lot of trust for each other, you start to undermine that kind of system.I think it's really worth thinking about how you get a lot of social integration where there is a constant high population that is newcomers. Are there good examples of this anywhere historically?

It's worth watching Trevor Phillips film, where he addresses some of these questions. It was a number of years ago but I think it is in some ways looking ahead to these same issues. It used to be on youtube, but I can't seem to find it there now - I'll see if it's somewhere else.

Rwanda plan as is wouldn't deter imo.
Gaddafi 2.0 would 🤷

I asked earlier if anyone knows what was holding the Med crossings of before.
Gaddafi et al🤷

Because it's often back breaking work for peanuts- and in the case of fruit picking you can be expected to live on-site in substandard accommodation.

Most people seem to agree that work should pay enough to live on. Most ageee that benefits should not be propping up underpayinng employers. I can guarantee the vast majority of single income full time care workers, if they have children, will be on universal credit.

If working in hospitals, care homes, hospitality or picking fruit paid enough to put a roof over your families head, feed them and keep them warm, get transport to work/school and have a bit left over for other essentials and a tiny amount for luxuries the jobs would be filled. Reality is the wage wouldn't touch the side of doing this and lots of people - with kids anyway - find themselves better off (in money and quality of life) working a few hours and topping up with universal credit or not working at all.

It's like 21k - 18k after tax etc. Two adult household on FT NMW brings in 36k.
How is that peanuts?