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?

Yes and your idea that doing it differently will lead to house requisitions is bonkers

And lacks a decent look at what’s going on generally with increasing migration

I think bomb was saying the ECHR protects us from house requisitions so we might want to keep it. Like insurance against a future we can't yet know.

I'd argue that advocating the removal of human rights as a way to deal with immigration is more bonkers than pointing out how the ECHR protects us all.

Lots of straw manning going on in this thread....

It won’t survive in current form. Countries will change it or exit

The asylum system as it was set up won’t cope with migration increase.

Voters will demand change or resort to public disorder- both have already started and will increase.

Aus is lucky it will be one of the few to work out approach within the law

Yes of course. It is literally designed as a cohesive convention to prevent certain groups being picked off or identified as being less worthy.

It’s also designed for pre climate change and trafficking migration…

Do people not notice the world news? Look at what’s happening and project forward a bit

For example, the Convention will stop me as say a border office from taking any property an asylum seeker brought with them. It means the asylum seeker cannot be locked up indefinitely without review, it means that, for example, the U.K. cannot design a system where it extracts gold from people's teeth on arrival (again, something that the Nazis did to Jews). I appreciate to some these ideas are extreme. But the Convention exists because there were no limits at all, and it is possible to say domestically, this the law only and we are within it. International law is a challenge to the idea that states are decent or will regulate themselves in a way that does not tyrannise people, take their property, lock them up, give no reason, or torture them.

It means I can't introduce a white only policy or racial purity law. Arguably that would remove migration problems overnight: anyone who could not show their heritage in the U.K. going back two hundred years could be expelled. That used to be the BNP line. And you could have a house consficated from those pesky immigrant interlopers.

The only disorder I have seen in the U.K. is the far right at the Cenotaph, and then seeing Tommy Robinson being pepper sprayed. That seems to be about the right approach to me, to deal with barbarians within rather than speculate as to the ones apparently outside.

Migration as a legal matter via visa can be more severely controlled. If people vote for it, then it can happen.

If you want to slow immigration, just promote mumsnet abroad... Some of the chat on here makes 3rd world countries sound rich compared to uk...

Which is why I suggest looking at world news… we’re not going to be the only country not disturbed by this

We are not immune just because some favour Labour atm and they’d prefer to deflect

It’s not going away, it’ll only go in one direction. A system unable to cope and increased pressure for change.

@Sauerkrautsandwich yes an afternoon or two on mn threads ;

How does leaving or amending the ECHR or any other treaty deal with migration, from war, climate or economic?

Do posters think a migrant escaping the Taliban, Assad, Putin or escaping starvation in Eritrea will be studying International law before making the move?

If you really do want to deter such people, then you'll have to go to a situation where we will treat them even worse.
Even Rwanda (increasingly looking like a non starter) will be preferable to many asylum seekers.

One reason Australia's policies worked is that they put people in camps that offered terrible living conditions, another is that the economies of SE Asia improved, there is a lesson for Europe here.

So the majority agree that there is a housing crisis, but what I find interesting is the differing attitudes when identifying the reason for it and how it should be managed. I think it's absurd to even suggest that elderly people should give up their homes; the ones I know are not well off or from monied backgrounds - they just happened to be from the era when home ownership was attainable on blue collar incomes. It doesn't mean they're not struggling with the col and paying their energy bills! The real problem is addressing poor wages which suppresses people's ability to afford to buy a home and therefore, in effect vastly inflates the rental market. cheap imported labour only adds to the problem.

Well, if you increase wages too quickly, you feed inflation, making the problem even worse, increasing wages to give people more money, will also take many years.

As my mum used to say "there is nothing new under the sun" so after the war, we had a housing crisis, the Govt, both Tory and Lab, built council housing, cheap rents, more money in the local economy, better for the economy.

With improvements, we need to do the same but pointless if the Tories continue to let in 745k per year, we'll never keep up.

Agree, any attempt to requisition larger or even empty houses would be madness, though changes to taxation on 2nd homes is needed.

@jasflowers agreed

Sounds like the start of some dystopian novel....

Couldn’t agree more. My family used to live in a communist country where the state made sure nobody had ‘more house than needed’.
Definitely not the kind of place most people would like to live in.

Many people were being kept ‘warm and sheltered’ sharing apartments with strangers, in old, crumbling buildings.
I had several classmates who lived like that - a family would get a room or two and share the kitchen and the bathroom with others.
My grandparents managed to get a newly built flat for themselves and their two kids - the flat had only one bedroom though. After my grandfather died, grandma lived there with my uncle, his wife and their child. Four people sharing one bedroom and a living room.

Lots of us would readily downsize if there was anything suitable. I don’t live near my DC, can’t afford to buy a retirement property, but would be happy to rent from a housing association/RSL. However, as a homeowner (even though its modest) I’m at the back of the queue, if I want to move nearer one of the DC, back of the queue again because I don’t have local residency.

There are still a few pensioners in our street of semis and small terrace houses, but they’re snapped up by young families when they become empty.

Just built a house self build - nothing fancy £250,000 that's why nobody can afford to buy - cost of land + labour + materials - 30 year mortgage will cost someone £1300
What has to give free land free labour free materials - what's the answer

Doesn’t sound much different to the living conditions of some people in the UK. As I said, however, there is no point comparing completely different countries.

I live in a group of 5 large (all at least 4 bed) family homes, all bought when occupants had 2+ young children. H & I are the only ones who still have a child (teen) living at home; we are the youngest couple, we will sell & downsize soon.

The other 4 households ... 2 have grand children who sometimes visit, 2 don't & may never have grandkids. We are all massively over-housed. Our lovely neighbour (herself+ 2 dogs in a 4 bed house) is being urged to move closer to her grandkids, but is resisting. It's silly. For the price of our now excessive house we can buy a nice but smaller property in the city or even in our same town. All of us could afford that.

I'm intrigued by MN posters who "can't afford" to downsize. The only possible smaller size home is "a rabbit hutch". How does that work?

Why are people implying that I said something needed to be "enforced"? I am saying that there's a moral case for encouraging downsizing & that people who refuse to downsize should not blame immigrants for housing problems.

Also wondering how Japan will manage its labour shortage. tbf, it's still a powerhouse economy with extremely low immigration. So what does Japan do well that UK could emulate ? Apparently Japan has both a housing glut and huge barriers to becoming home owners.

Back to the subject more generally, I think that more and more countries in Europe are going to be governed by the far right at this rate.
There have been the recent gains in Germany by the AfD, the Freedom Party win in the Netherlands and last year's Italian election results leading to Giorgia Meloni becoming prime minister.

France is on an absolute knife edge now after the murder of the teenager in Crépol, Pedro Sanchez in Spain has pushed convervative Spanish people very hard with his backing of the Catalan separatists and banning of public rosary prayer, and Ireland is seeing right-wing riots in the streets.
The rest of the decade is going to be interesting.

I know it's fashionable to indicate imminent right wing doom but really it actually seems better in the U.K than when I grew up when the BNP were a real thing and any one was not white should be repatriated.

Also, if that's right about the far right this racially diverse country is in for a tough time. I don't think think the far right are bothered about what passport you have and instead skin colour is uppermost. We have a moral duty to prevent them being a significant force.

Despite people on MN decrying the UK as a racist shithole, it's imo far and away less racist than any other European country I can think of and things have indeed improved hugely here over the last few decades.

I hope it remains that way in the coming few years.

Yes many on mn like to go on about how racist the U.K. is but we are generally tolerant

That said nowhere will get away from pressures from increased migration

It is actually possible to have policies in place and have a left wing gov… see Aus

I doubt it will be as smooth getting there though

There are no awards for 'least racist'

The least racist is STILL racist.

I don’t think anyone mentioned an ‘award’

@lljkk I think the issue is that there really isn't attractive housing being built for ageing downsizers. I am happy to live somewhere smaller or cheaper. But it is not being built in the UK. I spend stupid hours on RightMove looking at areas of Europe I have enjoyed visiting and there are houses for sale that look perfect for us, at about half the price of the same space and layout in the UK. And in the UK, it would be on a main road or so far out in the boonies that any older person would be concerned about keeping their driver's license long past the point at which it should have been relinquished.

I would like to find a simple but generous open plan social space (including the kitchen) with enough room to have eight people for dinner and a bedroom/bathroom at either end. An open view would clinch the sale. I don't want to live on an A road -- because the dog is too daft I don't want to live in the arse end of nowhere. I would like parking/garage and an easy garden or sunny outside space. Ideally within walking distance of a shop that sells milk and newspapers. Is that a high barrier?