Could this be the start of a nasty period in Britain as Brexit starts to hit?

We're certainly more crowded than we were but we definitely could take care of our own citizens if there was the political will to do so. But there just isn't.

We are the 6th richest country in the world but we rank somewhere in the high 30s for unequal distribution of wealth. Every tory government we've had since 1979 has contributed to that position. People keep voting them in so presumably they're perfectly happy with this.

This site has the OECD chart showing equality of income distribution:

uk.businessinsider.com/ranked-income-inequality-around-the-world-2015-7?r=US&IR=T

Being near the top means that we have a more unequal distribution.

We may already have controls daphne, but clearly it's not working. The immigration question was only a small part of why I voted Brexit. I've already explained all that and haven't time to go through it again.
Later I'd like to read all the other posts too, this subject has certainly rattled a few cages.

But leaving the EU will make absolutely no difference to those coming from unstable parts of the world. There will still be people smuggling and we still issue visa to people from non-EU countries. We will still need to allow some people to come from the EU and elsewhere to do essential jobs.

The government has now admitted that immigration will probably not go down after the UK leaves the EU. The number coming from outside the EU has always exceeded the number coming from the EU and the UK has always been able to control the number. I'm sorry, but I really don't understand why immigration should have been an issue at all.

It was an issue because ukip and the more rampant Brexiters and press made it an issue as something they knew they could use to their advantage. That is why Farage is still chuntering on about it to keep ukip relevant - he hopes. Scapegoating is an age old tool. Rationality and common sense has nothing to do with it.

Apparently facts are now irrelevant. Democracy apparently is all about what people feel is true or believe regardless of facts or truth. God help us!!

Jess M 09.06

"Baroness this morning on Today programme was very emphatic that it is in everyone's interests - both EU nationals here and UK in Europe, to resolve this before the negotiations start. "

That's the point I keep making g .

Theresa May tried to get some sort of 'Reciprocal Right' agreement but was flatly turned down by Merkel, Donald Tusk/EU Commission. The EU has repeatedly stuck to it's word:-

' No Negotiations Before Article 50 Has Been Triggered'.

It matters not a jot who, what , where the empathy comes from it is just not penetrating.

The longer the House of Lords and Parliament 'ping pong' the triggering of Article 50 the longer it takes to get sorted. Both the UK Government and the EU Commission/Parliament have said they want to resolve the matter of EU citizens from the '28' Nations and residency.

LADIES - please get your facts right before you bash Brexit.

Irene Clennel has lived in the UK for a total of 10 years only, since arriving in 1988. Since then, she has spent 1992 to 1998 living in Singapore with her husband and sons, after which time they returned to the UK so that she qualified to buy property on the strength of her Singaporean passport. She has since sold this property to make a tidy sum for herself.

Angela Clennel - her sister-in-law, has raised over £50,000 to "fight her case", yet Irene claims to have only £12 in her pocket?

Singapore is not some third world back water - it is one of the top economies in the world - enviably so.

I am appalled that you can read a headlines and sensational reporting, then condemn Brexit, the government and all sorts of bodies, without actually checking out the facts. GillT57, you have summarised the case exactly how the media wanted you to, and you are wrong. Gullible or what?

Here's the truth:
limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/q-irene-clennell-immigration-case.html

Thank you for that GrannyAnnie. As you write, this has nothing to do with Brexit or the rights of EU citizens, although it doesn't surprise me that it's somehow morphed into a debate about immigration and Brexit, whether or not Brexit will even affect immigration of non-EU citizens. It frustrates me so much that issues get confused in this way, in the same way that people interviewed before the referendum said they were going to vote Leave to kick Muslims out.

I have some sympathy for Irene Clennel, but I would have thought it was in her best interest to be up-to-date with the law. I'm afraid it reminds me of the case of the Australians in Scotland, for which there was also an enormous amount of public sympathy. Cases such as this make a mockery of the law and genuine asylum seekers.

I feel that 18 year olds deported just before taking A levels and the university student deported just before taking her degree have a much stronger case for some compassionate arrangement, but they don't seem to get so much publicity. Maybe their families can't afford it.

daphnedil

' We will still need to allow some people to come from the EU and elsewhere to do essential jobs.'

Yes! Can you tell me one political party that does not concur with that statement other than the BNP because I listen intentently to what is said and nobody has said anything different to your words.

What people who are charged as being racist/xenophobic because they voted to leave the EU I believe are hoping for is an end to
seeing their jobs market falling away by laws such the EU Posted Workers Directive as an example. Whether or not you agree plenty of people from various areas of the country are struggling to cope with the influx of immigrants, their demographic way of life has been eroded. Wages have been lowered by the Free Movement of People. Obviously there is competition for jobs and when the locals miss out it naturally causes resentment. That by the way is not a UK only problem, it applies to other countries also hence we are seeing the political changes in other countries too .

Most people accept / understand there will be immigration but again they are hoping for immigration to be allocated wisely and to those who will abide by our laws, be productive and prove to be good fellow citizens.

It is fine to say that government , not only Tory for goodness sake, have not provided homes, school places, NHS provision for the high levels of immigration but that does not address the question why vast amounts of money paid for through taxation by the people should provide for it if as happens the indigenous population are seeing their needs for school places, accommodation, health care suffering due to the high numbers of immigration.

Now I have read repeatedly that immigrants are a boon for the UK, not necessarily. If workers are keeping wages down, on low pay that ensures they are housed, receive tax credits and other benefits, they require education, health care immigration soon becomes an issue and the issue finally surfaced in the EU Referendum result.

It's difficult but I don't see or hear any of the political parties saying that they do not want any immigration, full stop Nada/Zilch/Nothing. I hear a more pragmatic rhetoric to be honest.

What is the problem with the Australian Points System? Nobody says Australia's Point System is racist/xenophobic. It makes perfect sense. If a UK Government , especially a Tory one, were to put it into place they would be racist/zenophic 'In The Eyes Of Some'.

The time has come for a pragmatic, Realpolitik type of governance and immigration is a huge factor.

daphndil

Your response to GrannyAnnie 2010 who posted re Irene Clennel was simply showing bias or ignorance, take your pick, as GrannyAnnie was posting in response to previous posts on the subject.

Funny you did not rebuke previous posters by telling them:-

"Thank you for that xxxxxx. As you write, this has nothing to do with Brexit or the rights of EU citizens, although it doesn't surprise me that it's somehow morphed into a debate about immigration and Brexit, whether or not Brexit will even affect immigration of non-EU citizens"

As the Speaker would say.

"I want to hear from GrannyAnnie". Not try and shut her up.

POGS

I have not claimed that any party has denied that essential workers will be needed.

I haven't accused anybody on this thread of being racist or xenophobic. In fact, I haven't written much on any thread about my opinions on immigration.

These are straw man arguments and I'm a tad annoyed with them.

I'm frustrated that some people really seem to have believed the promise that immigration would be brought down to below 100,000. It was quite obvious from the beginning that wouldn't happen and people have been confused by the status of EU and non-EU immigrants anyway. This was all dismissed as "Project Fear". It wasn't, but it doesn't have anything to do with this case anyway.

So what's wrong with what I wrote? Apart from being factual!

daphnedil

"So what's wrong with what I wrote? Apart from being factual! hmm"

Nothing, I agree with you when you say:-

" We will still need to allow some people to come from the EU and elsewhere to do essential jobs."

I broadened the reason why I agree with you but I went further and made the point that it is not 'immigration' at all cost.

The only question I asked of you was can you name any Political Party besides the BNP who does not agree with your statement.

The rest of my post was a 'generalised' comment of how ' I ' see the subject of immigration and ' generalised' comments that most definitely HAVE called Brexiteers Racist/Xenophobic and clearly has been noted by any poster that follows/dips in to GN Politics Threads or the media etc. I was putting forward reasons why I think such comments are misguided to say the least .

The point is, that once we are free of the EU, we can then have the number of immigrants that we want and need now.....this may be much the same as now, or slightly less or a lot less ( or even, gasp! More) but we would be taking what suits us, and from the countries that suit us, and the type of worker that suits us.

Grannyannie please don't patronise and I am not gullible ( how rude), I reported from The Huffington Post and put on a link and asked people's opinions, which was what we now have. I agree that this case is not as cut and dried as it initially seemed, but it has certainly started a discussion on what I consider to be a very important subject. Yes, Brexit is relevant to the discussion, and whatever anyone's reasons were for voting to leave Europe, if one of the reasons was to cut immigration then they have made a big mistake. The only area of immigration that leaving the EU will change, as far as I am aware, is the free movement of EU citizens. It will not have any impact on giving refugee status to those seeking it and will have no impact on those people who are non EU, such as USA, Australia, Asia etc. I think this is the way it is and will stand corrected if wrong. The bonkers proposed net migration figures of less than 100k people will never be achieved, unless of course thousands of people like DH and I decide to leave because we don't like what the country has become

I think gullible is a good word to use, because I'm guilty of it in this case. Yesterday I was ready to get the debit card out then my daughter told me something that she had read. It doesn't stack up.

" We will still need to allow some people to come from the EU and elsewhere to do essential jobs."

How patronising to Europeans. Not surprising they are going back home.

Why is it patronising? Isn't that why they came to the UK in the first place?

Indeed petra and I agree that this particular case has more to it than initial reports suggest, but, there are other cases of people being refused leave to stay after many years of living in UK, paying taxes, raising a family etc, and we should not let this case close our minds to what is happening to many people. It is not, I think, quite as simple as that buffoon Peter Bone suggested on Newsnight last night; he said that all people had to do was pop along and see their constituency MP and it would all be sorted! If that is the case, which is obviously isn't, then the entire Home Office/Border Control system is nonsense. I would love to hear the feedback from his fellow MPs as they find their offices overwhelmed with people seeking advice on their imminent deportation. Fool.

theconversation.com/people-have-been-used-as-bargaining-chips-before-by-romanias-nicolae-ceau-escu-73141

I signed the petition to allow Irene Clennell to stay here and I am not gullible or a bleeding heart.

I am, however, sympathetic and pragmatic. If Irene has made a tidy sum from property then she is not likely to need to rely on the benefit system. If Irene is allowed back to the UK to be with her husband she will be able to care for him instead of the State having to pick up the responsibility for his care.
She is married to a British man and has lived her for at least 10 years which surely should qualify her to be able to remain here.

Presumably the fact that she left with only £12 in her pocket means that the officials in charge did not allow her to withdraw enough Singapore dollars of her own money for her immediate needs.

No, I am sure most of us are perfectly aware that Singapore is not some 3rd world backwater - we're not as stupid as you may think we are Grannyannie. Some of us have visited Singapore and some of us have even lived there. Well, who'd have thought it!

As someone has pointed out, the Government wants to be seen to be doing something about immigration and deporting defenceless women who have been here for years seems to be the easy option rather than deporting criminals who stay here to the detriment of our society.

I would not donate cash but I signed the petition.

I thought the link stated the facts but was rather nasty in tone.

How do we come to an opinion regarding this lady?

Put yourself in her shoes. There is now doubt how I would feel.

I wouldn't like to be in the husbands, or the sister in laws shoes when it becomes obvious that she isn't going to be let in. The chap who wrote the link seemed to know a lot about the legalities Re crowdfunding. It appears that she allegedly didn't tell the whole truth about the amount of time Irene had spent outside the uk when applying to crowdfunding.

Her children and grandchild are British too.
How are they feeling?

The criticism is that she has not spent 30 years here as her sister-in-law stated; however, being Singaporean she probably felt that she had a great duty towards her parents and wanted to care for them in their sickness and old age.
She could have brought them over to the UK to live, of course, and they could have benefited from the NHS.
Coming to be cared for - you’re an adult dependent relative
You must be dependent on a parent, grandchild, brother, sister, son or daughter who is living permanently in the UK.

She could have brought them over to the UK to live, of course, and they could have benefited from the NHS.

I thought Gnetters didn't in general approve of things like that?