Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Leadson is the last one, Boris and Farage are gone, Gove is going to see more of his wife, no £350 million.

    Remainers clear up the mess.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn will clear up the mess and he's a Eurosceptic.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Leadson is the last one, Boris and Farage are gone, Gove is going to see more of his wife, no £350 million.

    Remainers clear up the mess.
    Then we'll stay in Single Market, no problems!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshiee)
    Corbyn will clear up the mess and he's a Eurosceptic.
    Ah so you agree there's a mess?

    Corbyn is absolutely useless, he'll incite confidence in no one if he runs for the general election.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshiee)
    Corbyn will clear up the mess and he's a Eurosceptic.
    Like hell he will. He's barely cleaning up the mess within his own party.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Clueless! There will be a huge mess now May is PM! She was Home Secretary and look at immigration and crime levels!!! Useless person who helped to cover up PIE by destroying documents! God help us!!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Angela Eagle is trying to get back in
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    She was Home Secretary and look at immigration and crime levels!!!
    Are you seriously suggesting that anything the Home Secretary does will have any impact on crime or immigration? You could build a 100ft wall around the coast line and man it with 30 million fully armed soldiers and immigration would still be 100,000+. Tis the way it is.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Are you seriously suggesting that anything the Home Secretary does will have any impact on crime or immigration? You could build a 100ft wall around the coast line and man it with 30 million fully armed soldiers and immigration would still be 100,000+. Tis the way it is.
    They are in charge of it?!! Australia seem to manage and look at their coast line!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    They are in charge of it?!! Australia seem to manage and look at their coast line!
    Amazon are in charge of their website. That doesn't prevent unprecidented demand from crashing their site though. If Teresa May as Home Secretary was in full control of immigration, why were 130k non-EU immigrants allowed in? I would suggest immigration is somewhat uncontrollable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    They are in charge of it?!! Australia seem to manage and look at their coast line!
    Let's assume the people 'we' allegedly don't want are from the same part of the planet as the ones the Aussies wouldn't want.

    5000 miles minimum across the Indian Ocean (poss a bit of the Arabian Sea for some) compared to the back of an 18 wheeler articulated from through the Channel Tunnel. I'm obviously leaving out the travel across the European and African land masses and the boats across the Med but you get my drift (no pun intended)

    Yep, true like for like comparison between Folkestone and somewhere in WA
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Amazon are in charge of their website. That doesn't prevent unprecidented demand from crashing their site though. If Teresa May as Home Secretary was in full control of immigration, why were 130k non-EU immigrants allowed in? I would suggest immigration is somewhat uncontrollable.
    She was the leader of the Home Office - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Office

    Could I make it any easier for you to now understand?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    She was the leader of the Home Office - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Office

    Could I make it any easier for you to now understand?
    Understand what? Home Secretary runs the Home Office and is responsible for securing borders and reducing immigration. Under her leadership controllable immigration rose significantly. She says she will now reduce it. On what basis I ask?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    She was the leader of the Home Office - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Office

    Could I make it any easier for you to now understand?
    UK Visas and Immigration (previously the UK Border Agency) is part of the Home Office and therefore under the Home Sec's durisdiction

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...nd-immigration
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viffer)
    Let's assume the people 'we' allegedly don't want are from the same part of the planet as the ones the Aussies wouldn't want.

    5000 miles minimum across the Indian Ocean (poss a bit of the Arabian Sea for some) compared to the back of an 18 wheeler articulated from through the Channel Tunnel. I'm obviously leaving out the travel across the land European and African land masses and the boats across the Med but you get my drift (no pun intended)

    Yep, true like for like comparison between Folkestone and somewhere in WA
    Rules on border control are what allows Australia to control their borders. it doesn't matter where in the world you are located.. people will always want to enter a Country that can improve their lives. If we let them in or not should be a choice for the Country to make. We could be nice and let everybody in, like now, thus this can then reduce the quality of life for people already living here or we can tell them NO they can't live here, so find another one of the MANY Countries to live! Choices Choices!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iknowbest)
    Rules on border control are what allows Australia to control their borders. it doesn't matter where in the world you are located.. people will always want to enter a Country that can improve their lives. If we let them in or not should be a choice for the Country to make. We could be nice and let everybody in, like now, thus this can then reduce the quality of life for people already living here or we can tell them NO they can't live here, so find another one of the MANY Countries to live! Choices Choices!
    I fully understand and appreciate points based systems and 'welcoming' people with skills that an employers are looking for and the indigenous population don't (currently) have

    The point I was making was simply one of logistics so protecting the Australian coastline is a bit different to stopping illegal immigration to the UK.

    FWIW, I think if the EU commission had conceded earlier this year that migrants (a) must have a job to come to and/or (b) had a means of supporting themselves and/or (c) that welfare and health should be picked up by the country of origin I strongly suspect the Referendum outcome would have been very different.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Ah so you agree there's a mess?

    Corbyn is absolutely useless, he'll incite confidence in no one if he runs for the general election.
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    Like hell he will. He's barely cleaning up the mess within his own party.
    How so? You must elaborate on your claims now..

    MPs made a choice of their own to create the mess, and he made the right choice in the face of the coup to allocate new ministers for those same positions. He did so for the sake of the Labour party membership - where the majority of the votes were given to him.

    In what way is he seen as "useless", I've read unsubstantiated claims and risible allegations made towards him. I want you to prove to me in what way is he not the right man to lead the party based upon his own actions and not those of the members who partook in the coup.

    The man has integrity, is that not useful in a leader?

    I'm not even wholly a Labour party supporter, but I view him to be the best leader they have produced in the last two decades.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by getfunky!)
    How so? You must elaborate on your claims now..

    MPs made a choice of their own to create the mess, and he made the right choice in the face of the coup to allocate new ministers for those same positions. He did so for the sake of the Labour party membership - where the majority of the votes were given to him.

    In what way is he seen as "useless", I've read unsubstantiated claims and risible allegations made towards him. I want you to prove to me in what way is he not the right man to lead the party based upon his own actions and not those of the members who partook in the coup.

    The man has integrity, is that not useful in a leader?

    I'm not even wholly a Labour party supporter, but I view him to be the best leader they have produced in the last two decades.
    It was as big a responsibility of the Labour party as it was the Conservatives' to make sure we remained in the EU, and they both failed. Cameron stepped down, and Corbyn should have done the same.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    It was as big a responsibility of the Labour party as it was the Conservatives' to make sure we remained in the EU, and they both failed. Cameron stepped down, and Corbyn should have done the same.
    Labour secured 60%+ support of remaining, whilst the Conservatives secured only half of that. The Conservative members Gove took lead on the Leave campaign. The nation decided to leave.

    Yet this is a red herring, how is this a remark on the leadership capabilities of Corbyn.

    So i ask again, provide substantiated claims as to why Corbyn is not the right leader for the Labour party, based on his own actions and not of others.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    May can't reduce immigration without screwing up the economy even more.

    I very much doubt both EU and none EU migration will be reduced at all and probably go up because Britain needs them.



    The only way it will go down is if the economy tanks and there are fewer jobs which is most likely.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.