NPR

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 6:02 pm
Another trying to conflate legal and controlled immigration with illegal entry.

Did you really miss my point by that much?

It's not a difficult thing to grasp.

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 6:02 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:57 pm If you want low immigration, then copying Australia is dumb. Australia isn't a low migration country.

Another trying to conflate legal and controlled immigration with illegal entry.

Thread title: "Dinghy people / immigration".

How is an asylum seeker an illegal immigrant? Illegal asylum seeker isn't a status which exists. They seek asylum and if it is granted they receive refugee status and if it is not granted they are deported. Refusing to understand points like this, is how the UK has got itself into a 170k asylum seeker backlog. The way out is to process the claims. Not doing so means a growing mess, worse outcomes, and greater expense.

"Controlled" isn't the word I would use to describe the UK's migration system. There isn't even any exit checking system, by design, at points of entry/exit.

You couldn’t make it up

Migrants avoid move to Bibby Stockholm over ‘severe fear of water’

Up to 20 people mounted legal challenges alleging that Home Office officials failed to screen them for suitability

By
Charles Hymas,
HOME AFFAIRS EDITOR
7 August 2023 • 4:10pm

People carry bags onto the Bibby Stockholm on Monday
Asylum seekers have blocked their move from hotels onto a barge with some citing a “severe fear of water” in the latest legal challenge to the government’s migration policy.

Up to 20 migrants told by the Government they were being moved to the Bibby Stockholm barge in Portland, near Weymouth, Dorset, have mounted legal challenges alleging that Home Office officials failed to screen them for suitability.

They were supported by the charity Care4Calais, whose chief executive Steve Smith said none of the 20 asylum seekers they were helping went onto the barge as their legal representatives successfully had their transfers from hotels cancelled.

Most of the asylum seekers have come to the UK across the Channel on small boats. More than 15,000 have reached the UK so far this year, down 14 per cent on last year, although a significant proportion of it is blamed on bad weather.

“These 20 range from survivors of torture to people who have been beaten, shot at, some arrested, some traumatised by seeing their friends drown at sea and who therefore have a severe fear of water,” he told The Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 ... re4calais/

Lawyers the only winners here in this silly sideshow.

No doubt it’s all legal aid, so even more taxpayers money being wasted on these boat-shy dinghy people.

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 7:23 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 6:02 pm

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:57 pm If you want low immigration, then copying Australia is dumb. Australia isn't a low migration country.

Another trying to conflate legal and controlled immigration with illegal entry.

Thread title: "Dinghy people / immigration".

How is an asylum seeker an illegal immigrant? Illegal asylum seeker isn't a status which exists. They seek asylum and if it is granted they receive refugee status and if it is not granted they are deported. Refusing to understand points like this, is how the UK has got itself into a 170k asylum seeker backlog. The way out is to process the claims. Not doing so means a growing mess, worse outcomes, and greater expense.

"Controlled" isn't the word I would use to describe the UK's migration system. There isn't even any exit checking system, by design, at points of entry/exit.

This thread of mine was specifically about boat people and has been since page 1.

The topic of Australia which I brought up was specifically about their own situation for handling the boats and asylum claims. Instead of the silly strawman thrown about Australia’s total migration numbers.

I used the phrase illegal entry, which is as opposed to legally going through immigration. Eg boats. Ie the thread topic …

Deputy Chair of the Tory Party says they should ‘fuck off back to France’

Let’s not pretend this is about criminal gangs, or protecting asylum seekers or anything like that.

Lee Anderson doesn’t tend to hold back, but where is it?

I found this on the topic, but not the same.

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 8:47 pm This thread of mine was specifically about boat people and has been since page 1.

Go back and read page 1. More than one poster mentioned total immigration numbers (including me).

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 8:47 pm The topic of Australia which I brought up was specifically about their own situation for handling the boats and asylum claims. Instead of the silly strawman thrown about Australia’s total migration numbers.

I already replied to your stuff about France and the Aussie method. But I'll try again. When you send them back to France, what is your response when France escalates?

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 8:47 pm I used the phrase illegal entry, which is as opposed to legally going through immigration. Eg boats. Ie the thread topic …

That's not how it works. Last time I looked into it, someone hasn't entered the UK until they've disembarked and left the port area used for immigration, in other words anyone picked up that is processed and claims asylum hasn't illegally entered. If that's not the case, the migrant has to understand that entering the UK without a visa is illegal and it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt they understand that, if it can't be proven then there's no offense.

Over the course of this thread, have you ever asked yourself why there's a 170k asylum backlog and growing? Or why if they're all criminals they can't be prosecuted for their alleged crimes?

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 9:11 pm Lee Anderson doesn’t tend to hold back, but where is it?

I found this on the topic, but not the same.

What is Anderson's record on people using foodbanks and suffering from poverty, "our own" as he puts it? I seem to recall something about 30p soup, in other words eating gruel to maybe stay out of hospital. What was that about hypocrites again?

The other classic is when Tories bang on about "homeless war veterans", uhh why are they war veterans and why are they homeless, and why are they only mentioned as a "what about" in relation to immigration?

Why are there "homeless seeking housing"? Who is responsible for helping them?

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:12 pm Reading the Australian case, which I’ll admit I’ve not read an huge amount about …

They introduced offshore processing, but it only really made a difference when they implemented the turn back policy. Physically intercepting the boats to return them to the place of origin.

Have any European countries successfully implemented a turn back policy?

I note Denmark appears the most advanced in terms of handling.

It only "worked" by keeping the Murdoch Media happy.

10 times the number of the turnbacks arrived EACH WEEK illegally by plane (Visa overstayers, etc).

Nothing in the news about that

It's always the immigrants who make the most noise about refugees.

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:17 am It's always the immigrants who make the most noise about refugees.

"Quick, pull the ladders up!"

Tony Abbot - Migrant

mat the expat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:40 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:17 am It's always the immigrants who make the most noise about refugees.

"Quick, pull the ladders up!"

Tony Abbot - Migrant

Yup... and prize cunt. YMX's handwringing concern is transparent.

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:43 am

mat the expat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:40 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:17 am It's always the immigrants who make the most noise about refugees.

"Quick, pull the ladders up!"

Tony Abbot - Migrant

Yup... and prize cunt. YMX's handwringing concern is transparent.

Have you seen them both in the same place?

He's a big advocate of turning back the boats and lives in the UK.....

_Os_ wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 9:34 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 8:47 pm This thread of mine was specifically about boat people and has been since page 1.

Go back and read page 1. More than one poster mentioned total immigration numbers (including me).

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 8:47 pm The topic of Australia which I brought up was specifically about their own situation for handling the boats and asylum claims. Instead of the silly strawman thrown about Australia’s total migration numbers.

I already replied to your stuff about France and the Aussie method. But I'll try again. When you send them back to France, what is your response when France escalates?

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 8:47 pm I used the phrase illegal entry, which is as opposed to legally going through immigration. Eg boats. Ie the thread topic …

That's not how it works. Last time I looked into it, someone hasn't entered the UK until they've disembarked and left the port area used for immigration, in other words anyone picked up that is processed and claims asylum hasn't illegally entered. If that's not the case, the migrant has to understand that entering the UK without a visa is illegal and it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt they understand that, if it can't be proven then there's no offense.

Over the course of this thread, have you ever asked yourself why there's a 170k asylum backlog and growing? Or why if they're all criminals they can't be prosecuted for their alleged crimes?

OS, it’s pretty clear which cohort this thread is about, and in particular what I was talking about. Any suggestion otherwise, is extremely disingenuous.

I did read your comment about France, which made it sound impossible. This is in fact why I referenced the Aus case where this does in fact happen.

The illegal entry refers to the definition in UK law

Please read here

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3429

mat the expat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:00 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 4:12 pm Reading the Australian case, which I’ll admit I’ve not read an huge amount about …

They introduced offshore processing, but it only really made a difference when they implemented the turn back policy. Physically intercepting the boats to return them to the place of origin.

Have any European countries successfully implemented a turn back policy?

I note Denmark appears the most advanced in terms of handling.

It only "worked" by keeping the Murdoch Media happy.

10 times the number of the turnbacks arrived EACH WEEK illegally by plane (Visa overstayers, etc).

Nothing in the news about that

Where’s some official material on this?

Are you actually talking about asylum seekers? As you instead mention visa over stayers in your example?

Ymx wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2023 9:11 pm Lee Anderson doesn’t tend to hold back, but where is it?

I found this on the topic, but not the same.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/polit ... es-354163/

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:43 am

mat the expat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:40 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:17 am It's always the immigrants who make the most noise about refugees.

"Quick, pull the ladders up!"

Tony Abbot - Migrant

Yup... and prize cunt. YMX's handwringing concern is transparent.

I don’t quite know why I am bothering to reply to this.

But for clarity, this is not about legal migration where people enter the country, fulfill the criteria as set out by the state for entry. pay for own accommodation, pay for own food, pay taxes ….
This is about the boat asylum seekers, where these people have to be put up in hotels and the like, costing the UK £6.5 million per day, taking up essential housing, and who are dropped in to communities in dangerous, large numbers.

The the most vocal anti immigration poster is err..... in fact an immigrant

Fecking hell it's priceless or at least 30p

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 6:08 am The the most vocal anti immigration poster is err..... in fact an immigrant

Fecking hell it's priceless or at least 30p

I've been making this point for several days now, but that is not to say that an immigrant can't have a valid point of view, it's just that as a descendant of an immigrant to New Zealand, who then became an immigrant to the UK, you'd think there would be a more nuanced way of thinking, more empathetic perhaps, than "Stop the Boats", or "Build the Wall" if you will.

The bigger picture is looking at why people are risking their lives crossing the busiest shipping thoroughfare in the world in overcrowded tiny boats.

The way to reduce the hotel bill is to reduce the backlog.

The way to stop people coming here on boats is to provide safe routes for those genuinely in need. And cooperate with our neighbours.

As a demonstration of how difficult our visa system is, athletes from Eritrea wanting to compete in the World Cycling Championships in Glasgow had to travel to Turkey to apply for a visa. How do you think someone fleeing persecution does that?

Nationality of asylum seekers and refugees
In 2021, 42% of applicants were nationals of Middle Eastern countries, and 23% were nationals of African countries. This pattern shifted in 2022 with the largest nationality groups being Asian countries (31% of applicants) and European countries (24% of applicants).

Between 2014 and 2022, 54,000 people were resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes. Between 2014 and 2020, 20,000 Syrians were resettled under the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme. In 2021 and 2022, nearly 21,400 people from Afghanistan were resettled or relocated to the UK through various schemes.

In 2022, two new routes were introduced for Ukrainians. As of December 2022, around 154,500 people had arrived under these schemes. This flow was much larger in scale than any other single forced migration flow to the UK in recent history. The number of Ukrainian refugees who arrived in the UK in 2022 was equivalent to the number of people granted refuge in the UK from all origins, in total, between 2014 and 2021.

European context
In 2021, there were around 9 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 14 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. The UK was therefore below the average among EU countries for asylum applications per head of population, ranking 16th among EU27 countries plus the UK on this measure.


The whole document is worth a read
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... pplicants).

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:20 am

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 6:08 am The the most vocal anti immigration poster is err..... in fact an immigrant

Fecking hell it's priceless or at least 30p

I've been making this point for several days now, but that is not to say that an immigrant can't have a valid point of view, it's just that as a descendant of an immigrant to New Zealand, who then became an immigrant to the UK, you'd think there would be a more nuanced way of thinking, more empathetic perhaps, than "Stop the Boats", or "Build the Wall" if you will.

The bigger picture is looking at why people are risking their lives crossing the busiest shipping thoroughfare in the world in overcrowded tiny boats.

I have citizenship. Rest of my family are born here. All of my ancestry originated from here.

I didn’t get free hotels. I’ve paid a substantial amount of tax.

I’m quite within my rights to speak up about the place I live in, and for what the government spends my tax on.

As are you, a Scot in England (who wants Scottish independence).

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:54 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:20 am

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 6:08 am The the most vocal anti immigration poster is err..... in fact an immigrant

Fecking hell it's priceless or at least 30p

I've been making this point for several days now, but that is not to say that an immigrant can't have a valid point of view, it's just that as a descendant of an immigrant to New Zealand, who then became an immigrant to the UK, you'd think there would be a more nuanced way of thinking, more empathetic perhaps, than "Stop the Boats", or "Build the Wall" if you will.

The bigger picture is looking at why people are risking their lives crossing the busiest shipping thoroughfare in the world in overcrowded tiny boats.

I have citizenship. Rest of my family are born here. All of my ancestry originated from here.

I didn’t get free hotels. I’ve paid a substantial amount of tax.

I’m quite within my rights to speak up about the place I live in, and for what the government spends my tax on.

As are you, a Scot in England (who wants Scottish independence).

However my description of your circumstances was correct, was it not?

I was an immigrant when I lived and worked in France, though that didn't really affect how I thought about immigration. Funnily enough the one Front National (as was) voter I knew in France was an Italian, Italian immigrants used to get absolute shit in France, his main gripe was with North African immigration from the former French colonies.

As things stand my citizenship is British and I live the the UK, if Scotland became independent and if I wanted to remain in England I suppose I would be an immigrant, yes, and I would still favour a more nuanced and empathetic view than STOP THE BOATS.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:30 am The way to reduce the hotel bill is to reduce the backlog.

The way to stop people coming here on boats is to provide safe routes for those genuinely in need. And cooperate with our neighbours.

As a demonstration of how difficult our visa system is, athletes from Eritrea wanting to compete in the World Cycling Championships in Glasgow had to travel to Turkey to apply for a visa. How do you think someone fleeing persecution does that?

I don’t disagree with that at all, especially the top 2 paragraphs.

From page 1 I’ve advocated having a processing facility in France. I mean there are UK embassies.

I do feel however, there are many bad actors who enter via boat (from safety of France) who are coached to draw out the process, lie, fabricate, throw away ID/passports, whilst in all inclusive accommodation, and who also negatively impact the communities they stay with. So I do not feel the “just process the applications” is achievable without measures like the new act in place. And probably a turn back policy.

I'd say that communities have been negatively impacted by 13 years of Tory governments.

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 8:06 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:30 am The way to reduce the hotel bill is to reduce the backlog.

The way to stop people coming here on boats is to provide safe routes for those genuinely in need. And cooperate with our neighbours.

As a demonstration of how difficult our visa system is, athletes from Eritrea wanting to compete in the World Cycling Championships in Glasgow had to travel to Turkey to apply for a visa. How do you think someone fleeing persecution does that?

I don’t disagree with that at all, especially the top 2 paragraphs.

From page 1 I’ve advocated having a processing facility in France. I mean there are UK embassies.

I do feel however, there are many bad actors who enter via boat (from safety of France) who are coached to draw out the process, lie, fabricate, throw away ID/passports, whilst in all inclusive accommodation, and who also negatively impact the communities they stay with. So I do not feel the “just process the applications” is achievable without measures like the new act in place. And probably a turn back policy.

But then they have to get to France. If we were genuine in our wish to help, they wouldn't have to do that either.

On your last point the fundamental question is - are you prepared to deny someone who is genuinely persecuted / under threat of violence the help they need in order to keep all bad actors out? Because there's no perfect system so either you have to 1) refuse some people who genuinely need help, or 2) end up with some bad actors coming here. If you think there's a way to do both perfectly, that's delusional. So which do you choose?

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 8:28 am I'd say that communities have been negatively impacted by 13 years of Tory governments.

This is, of course, correct and has had far more impact than immigration, legal or illegal.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 8:48 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 8:06 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:30 am The way to reduce the hotel bill is to reduce the backlog.

The way to stop people coming here on boats is to provide safe routes for those genuinely in need. And cooperate with our neighbours.

As a demonstration of how difficult our visa system is, athletes from Eritrea wanting to compete in the World Cycling Championships in Glasgow had to travel to Turkey to apply for a visa. How do you think someone fleeing persecution does that?

I don’t disagree with that at all, especially the top 2 paragraphs.

From page 1 I’ve advocated having a processing facility in France. I mean there are UK embassies.

I do feel however, there are many bad actors who enter via boat (from safety of France) who are coached to draw out the process, lie, fabricate, throw away ID/passports, whilst in all inclusive accommodation, and who also negatively impact the communities they stay with. So I do not feel the “just process the applications” is achievable without measures like the new act in place. And probably a turn back policy.

But then they have to get to France. If we were genuine in our wish to help, they wouldn't have to do that either.

On your last point the fundamental question is - are you prepared to deny someone who is genuinely persecuted / under threat of violence the help they need in order to keep all bad actors out? Because there's no perfect system so either you have to 1) refuse some people who genuinely need help, or 2) end up with some bad actors coming here. If you think there's a way to do both perfectly, that's delusional. So which do you choose?

I don’t see how these are the two options. They are already in France, safe.

They will only get refused if they try to illegally enter, otherwise they apply from offshore and have a fair review. Arguably with less time pressure to ensure a fair hearing. These are specifically people already in France we are talking about.

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 9:33 am

I don’t see how these are the two options. They are already in France, safe.

They will only get refused if they try to illegally enter, otherwise they apply from offshore and have a fair review. Arguably with less time pressure to ensure a fair hearing. These are specifically people already in France we are talking about.

Well there's the problem. No such thing as a perfect system. So that means there are always going to be those on one side or the other of the line when they shouldn't be. Unless you think a perfect system is possible?

If you are a refugee it is not illegal to enter. Why can't you get that into your head?

My whole point was offshore applications - they're virtually impossible. That's what has led to this situation.

It's all justified because they can demonise them all as 'illegal' and be suitably outraged and "scared", wringing their hands with angst in fear & it's the sympathetic (All virtue signalers!) that are the problem. It's an intrinsically narrow, simplistic and selfish view.

Is it even legal/possible for UK to interview people in France "in a refugee centre", decide they're not fit to come to the UK to gain asylum and deport them "back to their own country"? Surely we'd need French assistance to do this?

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:20 am
The bigger picture is looking at why people are risking their lives crossing the busiest shipping thoroughfare in the world in overcrowded tiny boats.

Residency in the UK, and the citizenship that follows later, is priced at £2 million if you want to obtain it legally through investment. This suggests that there is a big economic incentive for people to try and reach the UK one way or another.

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:23 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:20 am
The bigger picture is looking at why people are risking their lives crossing the busiest shipping thoroughfare in the world in overcrowded tiny boats.

Residency in the UK, and the citizenship that follows later, is priced at £2 million if you want to obtain it legally through investment. This suggests that there is a big economic incentive for people to try and reach the UK one way or another.

Big economic incentive for very rich people who can afford £2million. And that would be a very relaxed tax regime for the very rich. It's of no relevance to most immigrants and asylum seekers.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:24 am

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:23 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:20 am
The bigger picture is looking at why people are risking their lives crossing the busiest shipping thoroughfare in the world in overcrowded tiny boats.

Residency in the UK, and the citizenship that follows later, is priced at £2 million if you want to obtain it legally through investment. This suggests that there is a big economic incentive for people to try and reach the UK one way or another.

Big economic incentive for very rich people who can afford £2million. And that would be a very relaxed tax regime for the very rich. It's of no relevance to most immigrants and asylum seekers.

I'm pretty sure the economic incentives are highly relevant for most immigrants to the UK, to be honest. I worked in this area for a few years helping people get residency in the UK and they weren't going for the food and the weather.

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:33 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:24 am

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:23 am

Residency in the UK, and the citizenship that follows later, is priced at £2 million if you want to obtain it legally through investment. This suggests that there is a big economic incentive for people to try and reach the UK one way or another.

Big economic incentive for very rich people who can afford £2million. And that would be a very relaxed tax regime for the very rich. It's of no relevance to most immigrants and asylum seekers.

I'm pretty sure the economic incentives are highly relevant for most immigrants to the UK, to be honest. I worked in this area for a few years helping people get residency in the UK and they weren't going for the food and the weather.

But the £2million visa through investment isn't relevant to the majority of economic migrants, the ones who are perceived as coming here for lower level jobs and that the tories say reduce wages by undercutting UK workers. That's conflating two entirely separate things.

That "economic incentive" is again looking through the wrong end of the telescope, I was more thinking about the absolute shit situations that cause people to flee across vast tracts of waters and lands.

Biffer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:24 am

robmatic wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 11:23 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:20 am
The bigger picture is looking at why people are risking their lives crossing the busiest shipping thoroughfare in the world in overcrowded tiny boats.

Residency in the UK, and the citizenship that follows later, is priced at £2 million if you want to obtain it legally through investment. This suggests that there is a big economic incentive for people to try and reach the UK one way or another.

Big economic incentive for very rich people who can afford £2million. And that would be a very relaxed tax regime for the very rich. It's of no relevance to most immigrants and asylum seekers.

Ya say the Russian oligarchs spaffing up millions for the Tory Party and buying up property with dirty roubles

YMX surely you must realise at this point that the Tories have no interest to do anything bar dumb shit to attract attention as they are content with the status quo. OS has pointed out we don't track exit. For example, instead of people let's talk goods. We signed the brexit trade agreement ages ago and still aren't complying with checks required in it to the detriment of British business and advantage to EU business. If they are incapable of complying with this agreement do you think they are capable of improving the issues with immigration? How about regulating and managing water or energy and boring things like gas storage? They are a government who like to leave things to the market and they are leaving immigration to the market.

petej wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 12:11 pm YMX surely you must realise at this point that the Tories have no interest to do anything bar dumb shit to attract attention as they are content with the status quo. OS has pointed out we don't track exit. For example, instead of people let's talk goods. We signed the brexit trade agreement ages ago and still aren't complying with checks required in it to the detriment of British business and advantage to EU business. If they are incapable of complying with this agreement do you think they are capable of improving the issues with immigration? How about regulating and managing water or energy and boring things like gas storage? They are a government who like to leave things to the market and they are leaving immigration to the market.

That's always been my biggest problem with the immigration drama whipped up by the press and politicians. We don't do exit checks, so we have absolutely no idea who is in the country. And we'll never do them unless we redesign every airport in the country. So we're never doing them.