Michael Howards immigration plan

Do think the Tory immigration policy is finally getting somewhere ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • he is a lying fcuker as soon as he is in power he won't do a thing!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
this something everybody has been saying for years , only now The Tories is putting together a policy of dealing with immigration. wonder why Labour didn't do anything, oooh yeas thats right they have a LARGE majority so no more vote winning policy is needed :roll:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4200761.stm
 
#3
BBC said the other day that this was one area they hoped wouldn't get too battered by the Tories. After all the various spokesmen and women had finished the Beeb mentioned that Labour were in a mess because they hadn't got a coherent policy (only where Romania was concerned it seems?!) and they didn't want to place the race card too early. The Home Office witch, Beverley Whats'ername fell on her sword (was made to) because her boss the man with the dog and beard, was trying to cut too many corners under instructions. The present Govt. has no leg to stand on here - illegals, asylum seekers and of course that plane load of Afghanis in 2000!
Good on Howard - now to persuade the electorate that this is a going concern. Next, concentrate on everything else - Death duties...etc, etc
 
#4
Funny how he's now just progressing with this idea just as some campaign 'expert' tells him that he lost the election already. Sounds like a desperate act of jumping on the bandwagon to me. :roll: Don't think it will impress much people - I can't see it working.
 
#6
If the great unwashedlike the idea, NuLaybar will have in in their manifesto, before you can say' party political broadcast'.

msr
 
#7
Mark this date in history!

It is the start of the return of the conservative party we once knew and loved.

As per usual, the labour and liberals reply with the race card and say it unworkable. I like the fact that tony blair was unwilling/unable to condem the proposals on their contents and possible outcomes, merely that he didnt think the tories could finance them with their proposed slash to the wasteful spending by government. Brilliant :D

Unsurprisingly, all of the immigration advocates (refugee groups, legal aid lawyers, human rights groups) seemed more than willing to play the race card and call it completely racist and immoral. Not only this but the spin unsubstantiated lies to try and discredit the plans. Does anyone wonder why they are always the forst to slam any alteration to the current immigrration fiasco? Whenever i hear a political statement like this, i immediately think "who gains from this?", and this time its obvious.Could it be because they have a vested interest in preserving the flow of refugees in order to justify their jobs and depts finances? :twisted:

I personally think they should fight the election on six basic principles

1.To reform the law and punishment system so that people feel that justice is being done and not appeasing the criminal element

2. Assylum (as above)

3. Reform the health service so that it is efficient and one of the best in the world. Wether this involves some privatisation (in terms of ancilliary services and not frontline), is up to them.

4 Reform the education system so that it produces students with 'real exam results' skills relevant to the real world and not flimsy academic university qualifications.

5 To reinvest in the armed forces after years of under-investment (by both parties) and once more make them one of the best fighting forces in the world.

6. To completely review government spendings and to make the government far more efficient by getting rid of the numerous layers of local government that are NOT needed and have been created to make the government a far more powerful influence on peoples everyday life. See £35billion savings mentioned previously by the tories.

Anyone wanna join my party? :twisted:
 
#8
Agent_Smith said:
Mark this date in history!

It is the start of the return of the conservative party we once knew and loved.
You might have loved them, for me and the majority of the public vote think that they're a bunch on no hopers with a very limp manefesto. Howard as PM :?:
If he wins I'll show my Arrse on the town hall steps :

Lab win
Libs Second
Torys Last
 
#9
You might have loved them, for me and the majority of the public vote think that they're a bunch on no hopers with a very limp manefesto. Howard as PM Question
If he wins I'll show my Arrse on the town hall steps :
I look forward to photographing your dangleberry encrusted hairy arrse :twisted:

Lab win
Libs Second
Torys Last
As for that, are you taking the urine? Limp wristed liberals 2nd? I would like to think that the nations is not THAT Fecked up! A poll on suday shows that 55% of the people asked did not have a clear idea about what the libs stand for. Could that be because they dont stand for anything? They just flip flop from issue to issue not making any worthwhile and solid contribution to the debate :roll:
 
#10
It would appear that Howards plans are 'illegal' anyway, according to todays Telegraph, so the whole thing is academic. Perhaps he should have consulted our euromasters first to save himself the embarrasment.
Can anyone doubt that we are no longer a sovereign nation? How can these Westminster IDIOTS not be aware of how much sovereignty has been given away to Brussels? What are these useless spineless wasters actually doing as our elected reps - apart from betraying us all?
:evil:
 
#11
Brussels: We'll halt Howard's curb on migrants
By David Rennie in Brussels and George Jones
(Filed: 25/01/2005)

The European Commission threatened last night to block Michael Howard's programme of tough immigration controls if the Tories win the election.

These would include setting an annual limit on the number of asylum seekers.

While Mr Howard faced criticism at home from refugee and race groups, Brussels officials said that directives already signed by the Government would prevent the Tories from adopting a go-it-alone policy on immigration.

A qualifications directive would stop them from withdrawing from the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, which prevents Britain from taking immediate action to deport asylum seekers whose claims are not genuine.

Europe's intervention in what has become a major issue in the election campaign took Westminster aback. MPs and officials were unaware of how much national sovereignty on immigration and asylum had been transferred to Brussels.

The Conservative leadership responded by saying that a Tory government would immediately opt out of the new rules. If that were blocked, it would insist on renegotiation to allow Britain to determine its own asylum and immigration policies.

Mr Howard had earlier denied that he was "playing the race card" by putting proposals for strict controls on immigration at the heart of the Tory campaign.

He said that immigration was out of control and that the country could not absorb the "millions" more who wanted to come here. Firm but fair controls were essential for good community relations and national security.

A Tory government would set an annual limit to immigration, including a quota for asylum seekers. It would introduce legislation to give the home secretary power to order the removal of bogus asylum seekers.

Within hours the European Commission said that Mr Howard was too late.

The qualifications directive establishes a binding EU definition of who is a refugee. It has been adopted by Britain and other EU governments and comes into full force in September next year, regardless of who wins the election expected in May.

Its definitions are drawn from the UN convention but expand on and reinforce the rather vague clauses of the 1951 treaty. It offers additional protection to asylum seekers fleeing civil wars and lifts its definitions for such cases wholesale from the European convention on human rights.

Friso Roscam Abbing, the chief spokesman for the EU justice commissioner, Franco Frattini, said that in 1997 Britain had negotiated a sweeping opt-out on questions of immigration. But in recent years, as the EU drew up a common asylum policy, the Government explicitly opted into the negotations. It had signed every directive to date.

"There is nothing in these protocols that allows a British government to opt back out again," Mr Roscam Abbing said. "So Britain is bound by them." Nor would a Conservative government be able to set quotas for the number of refugees accepted each year.

"Say they set a quota of 10,000 a year," Mr Roscam Abbing said. "Well, the 10,001st case could say to a British judge, `Your government is bound by EU rules and is not at liberty not to consider my claim,' "

A rolling wave of protocols and directives - one in force, one coming next month, a third next year and a fourth in 2007 - have overridden national laws on where governments keep asylum seekers, how they treat them, and how many appeals they are allowed.

If a future British government were to enact laws that contravened EU regulations, the commission would begin "infringement proceedings". Those would be followed, if resistance continued, by legal action in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

When The Telegraph told David Davis, the shadow home secretary, he said: "We had a pretty good idea we would have to renegotiate because the Blair Government has been opting into more EU asylum policies."

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said that Mr Howard's announcement left the way open for racists to put the "worst construction" on his message.
In other words, tony blair and his pro european cohorts have sold us down the river. Thanks to them, no longer do we have the power to decide who or how many people we take into our country. it is dictated to us by some unelected power wielding european representative. :roll:
 
#12
Brussels have given Howards idea the thumbs down!

B*liar and the drunken ginga have (all but) called him a racist!

Trevor Philips has called him a racist!

You should always judge someone by their enemies, so i'm voting Tory :D
 
#13
Agent Smith agreeded with you apart from health service privatising
cleaner and other ancilliries just made bad services worse .PFI is a crap idea must be why new labour like it so.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#14
Agent_Smith said:
Brussels: We'll halt Howard's curb on migrants
By David Rennie in Brussels and George Jones
(Filed: 25/01/2005)

The European Commission threatened last night to block Michael Howard's programme of tough immigration controls if the Tories win the election.

These would include setting an annual limit on the number of asylum seekers.

While Mr Howard faced criticism at home from refugee and race groups, Brussels officials said that directives already signed by the Government would prevent the Tories from adopting a go-it-alone policy on immigration.

A qualifications directive would stop them from withdrawing from the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees, which prevents Britain from taking immediate action to deport asylum seekers whose claims are not genuine.

Europe's intervention in what has become a major issue in the election campaign took Westminster aback. MPs and officials were unaware of how much national sovereignty on immigration and asylum had been transferred to Brussels.

The Conservative leadership responded by saying that a Tory government would immediately opt out of the new rules. If that were blocked, it would insist on renegotiation to allow Britain to determine its own asylum and immigration policies.

Mr Howard had earlier denied that he was "playing the race card" by putting proposals for strict controls on immigration at the heart of the Tory campaign.

He said that immigration was out of control and that the country could not absorb the "millions" more who wanted to come here. Firm but fair controls were essential for good community relations and national security.

A Tory government would set an annual limit to immigration, including a quota for asylum seekers. It would introduce legislation to give the home secretary power to order the removal of bogus asylum seekers.

Within hours the European Commission said that Mr Howard was too late.

The qualifications directive establishes a binding EU definition of who is a refugee. It has been adopted by Britain and other EU governments and comes into full force in September next year, regardless of who wins the election expected in May.

Its definitions are drawn from the UN convention but expand on and reinforce the rather vague clauses of the 1951 treaty. It offers additional protection to asylum seekers fleeing civil wars and lifts its definitions for such cases wholesale from the European convention on human rights.

Friso Roscam Abbing, the chief spokesman for the EU justice commissioner, Franco Frattini, said that in 1997 Britain had negotiated a sweeping opt-out on questions of immigration. But in recent years, as the EU drew up a common asylum policy, the Government explicitly opted into the negotations. It had signed every directive to date.

"There is nothing in these protocols that allows a British government to opt back out again," Mr Roscam Abbing said. "So Britain is bound by them." Nor would a Conservative government be able to set quotas for the number of refugees accepted each year.

"Say they set a quota of 10,000 a year," Mr Roscam Abbing said. "Well, the 10,001st case could say to a British judge, `Your government is bound by EU rules and is not at liberty not to consider my claim,' "

A rolling wave of protocols and directives - one in force, one coming next month, a third next year and a fourth in 2007 - have overridden national laws on where governments keep asylum seekers, how they treat them, and how many appeals they are allowed.

If a future British government were to enact laws that contravened EU regulations, the commission would begin "infringement proceedings". Those would be followed, if resistance continued, by legal action in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

When The Telegraph told David Davis, the shadow home secretary, he said: "We had a pretty good idea we would have to renegotiate because the Blair Government has been opting into more EU asylum policies."

Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said that Mr Howard's announcement left the way open for racists to put the "worst construction" on his message.
In other words, tony blair and his pro european cohorts have sold us down the river. Thanks to them, no longer do we have the power to decide who or how many people we take into our country. it is dictated to us by some unelected power wielding european representative. :roll:
Point of Order, M'Lud. The Iron Lady signed the Single European Act 8O
 
#15
Personally I think it is an excellent policy and we should take a leaf from the French (and the rest of Europe) and simply ignore any EU legislation that we dont like. Going one step better we should shift all the illegals back over to France and see how they like it. :twisted:
 
#16
So what did the Belo's do a couple of years back?. They sealed their borders and checked out ID cards.

Thousands were 'exported'.

Obviously Belgium isn't in the EU, otherwise they wouldn't be able to do this.
 
#17
Before all the Torys get all pumped up about Europe, Remember John "The Gray" Major did the "Masstricht treaty".

Howard is trying to cash in the same way as WH did, We all know that failed.
 
#18
Another policy that aim to please the Sun reading villege idiot. Typical of his sort.

This country economy need immigrant worker, that just the fact of life like it or not! Without the Polish maid to clean our toilet, Turk to run our Kerbe shop, Eastern European to work our farms, the Chinese to run our takeaway, Indian to make our curry, Austrian to do our account the economy will stop from a simple lack of cheap and skill labour. We can't even man an Army these day without migrant (remind me how many Fuijian in our infantry battlion at the moment)

Withdrew from UN convention is madness, if we start bending the rule, what stop the rest of the world to do the same in other matters that concern them? How about the NPT, plenty of countries want to get out it or Genneva Convention?

Baning Asylum from the mouth of a Romania Jews refugee's son!! may well have appied the same policy on his parent back in '39. Let see whether this fool can live though Auschwitz.
 
#19
Greyman, I think you've missed the point - this policy shouldn't affect those people you mentioned, it should affect bogus asylum seekers and those coming to sponge off our welfare system.
 
#20
Greyman said:
Another policy that aim to please the Sun reading villege idiot. Typical of his sort.

This country economy need immigrant worker, that just the fact of life like it or not! Without the Polish maid to clean our toilet, Turk to run our Kerbe shop, Eastern European to work our farms, the Chinese to run our takeaway, Indian to make our curry, Austrian to do our account the economy will stop from a simple lack of cheap and skill labour. We can't even man an Army these day without migrant (remind me how many Fuijian in our infantry battlion at the moment)

Withdrew from UN convention is madness, if we start bending the rule, what stop the rest of the world to do the same in other matters that concern them? How about the NPT, plenty of countries want to get out it or Genneva Convention?

Baning Asylum from the mouth of a Romania Jews refugee's son!! may well have appied the same policy on his parent back in '39. Let see whether this fool can live though Auschwitz.
Complete B@lls! The country economy doesn't need migrant labour, there's plenty of local folk in the countryside who are priced out of work because of migrants. The locals have to be paid minimum wage whereas the migrants are paid slave wages! What do think partly fuelled the violence in Thetford last summer against the Portuguese-owned pub. It was partly due to the large number of Portuguese workers doing locals out of jobs!

Personally I don't have a problem with refugees or genuine asylum seekers, the poor b*ggers have been through the mill already. I am dead against the Kosovans, Lithuanians, Portuguese, Turks, Kurds, etc who come heer purely because of the perceived beenfits and (relatively) higher wages.

NPT - how does that come into it? Has it stopped North Korea, the Pakistanis, the Indians, the Israelis.

Auschwitz - Again, where the hell does that come into the arguement, apart from being a recent newsworthy buzzword that you think can be thrown into the arguement. Next you'll be reponding to say I must be a member of the BNP, it's just as relevent - Not.
 

Top