Well, there goes one pipedream we were sold ...

[LurkingHusband]

That the UK could magic up a "points based system" for immigration.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37271420

For anyone planning on marrying a foreigner (assuming it's not made illegal) this should give them pause for thought :

"I want a system where the government is able to decide who comes into the country - I think that's what the British people want. A points-based system means that people come in automatically if they just meet the criteria," she added.

So rather than a predetermined set of criteria, every case is chosen on it's merits ? No chance of any latent racism rearing it's head there, then ?

" During this referendum I have seen family members and friends who I thought knew better and people in the wider community spout rhetoric and tropes/spin that came directly from the Mail / Times / Telegraph. "

Whatwould - so any opinions from the above newspapers should be ignored and only those from the Guardian or Independent are valid?
There's an article in the Telegraph today about the EU going ahead with its army. Do you think then, because it's in the Telegraph, it must be scaremongering?

Well that went well - 'David Davis's single market stance not government policy' says pm (guardian). I thought he was supposed to be in charge.

The problem the Brexiters are going to face (and I suspect it has already started) is that while they may have done a sterling job of engaging the normally unengagaed/unengageable part of the electorate, they haven't a clue how to keep them engaged. So just the sheer process of political inertia is going to work in favour of "Brexit" becoming "brexit" becoming brexit . Made all the easier by the lack of "what does Brexit look like" the Leave campaign were so keen on.

There is a saying about winning a battle and losing a war.

It was all very well managing to whip up people who don't normally vote. But there was one of the reasons they didn't vote was not because they were highly politically informed and educated.

Dapple I am cynical when I read any piece of journalism, it always suffers from issues of perspective and influence. For a start for the most part journalists are there to provide pieces that are entertaining for a particular audience first and informative second (sometimes the two are mutually inclusive, often they aren't) and their craft is the writing and the ability to convey an issue is readable way for a particular audience, not expertise. With a few exceptions they don't know what they are writing about. Indeed they are moved through postings so quickly that once they do know anything they move on, have you seen Tom Bradby given an opportunity to air his knowledge of China recently (though thankfully on that we have Carrie Gracie) The issue is even worse in the broadcast media which supposedly has a duty to provide balanced neutral coverage, the BBC seems to be in an existential crisis at the moment caught between the views of its presenters and the influence / threats from the government, no wonder you keep seeing the. Presenters with their heads in their hands. I couldn't believe that Newsnight dared field some tax exile from Guernsey with a similar agenda to Aaron Banks in what purported to be a serious debate about the future of our financial service industry. I know producers / presenters at Sky, and I am saying no more.

I'll have a look at that Telegraph article but it would be in the Telegraph wouldn't it, because their audience will want it to be true, so even if it is actually rooted in something a little different to the emotive campaigning.

Dapple Do you not see where fact gives way to biased speculation in this paragraph, not to mention the use of an emotive trope.

"Europe’s top diplomat reportedly told colleagues that the military plan - billed by some countries as the foundation of a “European army” - represented a chance for the EU to relaunch itself after the "shocking" Brexit vote."

Fact, the EU are considering a military plan. I am not an expert on defence matters but do know NATO has been regarded as an outdated mechanism for integrating military activity for some time, makes sense to have more effective mechanism for the countries in the EU partnership and this military plan will have already been the subject of UK influence and indeed subject to our veto.

The rest is speculation driven by the papers own agenda. Handily they have Geoffrey Van Orden a Conservative MEP to consult who is an MEP who comes from the agenda that
"I didn't become an MEP in order to promote the EU - I want us to govern our own country. I go to Brussels to speak up for British interests and the people of the East of England. My priorities are the prosperity and security of the United Kingdom."

My priorities are myself and then the prosperity and security of the United Kingdom.

Away from its Leader columns and letters pages, the Telegraph can be quite balanced. Not so the Express. I glanced at an Express headline a couple of weeks ago: 'EU talks begin', it screamed. Actually what had happened was a German politician had aired a few thoughts.

Dapple A couple more links for you

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/is-there-a-secret-plan-to-create-an-eu-army

www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/francois-hollande-embarks-on-tour-to-push-for-european-army/

What I take from this is that there is a call for more effective, and perhaps greater, integration of European military activity. However there are 27 different views on how that might work and it will take years to work that out especially with each of 27 countries having a veto (which the UK would have been particular trigger happy with ). However in the meantime there are some obvious wins for mutual benefit that everyone can agree on, like gaining economies through joint procurement as Paddy Ashdown highlights, that will go into a plan, a plan the UK would have agreed and benefitted from........

I'm going to have to keep saying: "we already have a points based system for immigration", aren't I...

Though of course we're the Telegraph to have hinted that the reality was a little more ambiguous, as it almost always is, then a certain man of my acquaintance could not bang the table and say "You see that bugger Juncker wants to conscript our young people into an EU army" (Sorry about the swearing but in reality it was one worse )

Were

Whatwould thank you for answering my question. I will read the links you posted when I get home.

I'm going to have to keep saying: "we already have a points based system for immigration", aren't I...

May seems to be suggesting that a true points-based system would reduce control over who gets in, which implies that such a system would result in an automatic right of entry if the points threshold is reached. What we have right now doesn't seem to work like that, or my employer wouldn't be moving new R&D investment to Asia. Even when recruiting very highly qualified people working in very specialised fields, it's currently very difficult for employers to bring in the staff they need. The system would need to be massively relaxed in order to meet businesses' needs, as its already a struggle for companies doing cutting-edge research, and that's with complete freedom to recruit from the EU.

May seems to be suggesting that a true points-based system would reduce control over who gets in, which implies that such a system would result in an automatic right of entry if the points threshold is reached.

Not much suggested, and more stating, if you ask me.

What I took from the article is that she wants to be able to have a much more arbitrary system, so that she (or HMG) can pick and choose the visas they issue. Firstly because it's probably much easier to sell them, and also because they want to avoid the political embarrassment of having some gobshite radical gaining automatic entry by dint of having enough points. Also, being able to change the goalposts is a tried and tested tool of Tory rule - one of the reasons they hate the HRA.

Being able to change the goalposts is a tried & tested tool of any rule though, not just Tories.

We already have a points system, it's unlikely that a points based system would lower EU immigration significantly. We don't Tretower people from other countries worse because we have EU immigration or make it more difficult, we do so because it's politically expedient to do so. Even with his system immigration isn't falling!

The treating everyone in the world the same argument is facilities, and designed to show that "I'm not racist".

What is facilities? Small. Was that last sentence aimed at me?

Nope, more Priti Patel.

I think the argument of discriminating against everyone the same is more for political expediency than for any real objections to immigration.

The only real reason we have the points system is because we weren't able to object to EU immigration, the reason people wanted lower immigration is because of the fears stoked by the rather racist press outlets, or their own iniquitous opinion not for genuine concern. As has been demonstrated every time people try to legitimise their concerns regarding immigration here.

misti - some parts of the current Points Based System (PBS) are limited (such as the Youth Mobility scheme under Tier 5), some are unlimited but can be made harder to qualify through changing the criteria (such as Tier 1 for highly skilled individuals), and others are supposedly unlimited but can be controlled to some extent by the number of individuals an employer (Tier 2) or college (Tier 4) can sponsor.

There is no active Tier 3 at the moment (that is were low skilled and seasonal workers would fit, including from Eastern Europe), and the bit omission and the bit I suspect TM is thinking about when saying that it wouldn't help control numbers is family settlement and reunification. At the moment, anyone who meets the criteria is able to get a visa to join their fiancee for example. I don't sense there is any appetite to implement points criteria to work out who most "deserves" to join their family, whilst we see in any system here or around the world that has a quota these tend to be full within weeks (if not days) of the new allocation opening up.

smallfox - the Points Based System was also supposed to take the objectivity out of immigration decisions (there were some really shonky decisions, particularly in relation to students), and enable more automation and thus cost savings from the sparkly new IT system. Well, we know how good the government is at running IT projects....

I know, but the pressure for a stricter system was also part of it.

Even if the Government did want to ship all / any EU nationals out (and of course they don't, oh dear me no, they never suggested such a thing, well, only if EU countries throw UK nationals out) apparently they couldn't.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37291830

"There is no reliable data to identify EU nationals in the UK or the length of their stay in the country, immigration minister Robert Goodwill has said.
He told MPs this lack of detail would not affect Brexit negotiations as he could not foresee a situation in which all EU nationals were told to leave.

Ministers say they cannot guarantee EU nationals living in the UK the right to stay without reciprocal assurances.
...
Prime Minister Theresa May has said she would expect to guarantee all EU citizens currently living in the UK the right to remain after the UK leaves the EU but this will depend on other EU countries offering similar assurances to British citizens living there."