I did say “apparently”. My comment was based on what I read in the document I gave the link to in my previous post (I think it is 3534).


I looked at it, yes. After a 5 or 10 minute scan I came to the conclusion that a) they don’t really have any clue about the figures (or even a definition of illegal working) b) they are massively under-resourced with an estimate of checking all suspect companies with current resources taking around 60 years, i think it was and c) they do have the powers necessary and have had for years.

Which rather underlines what we have been saying about the UK seemingly happy to NOT allocate resources to this whole area whether in prevention or hunting out current malpractice.

Also, when May was in the Home Office her attempt at making an impact in the vain attempt, now abandoned, to cut net immigration to under 100,00 p.a. as laid out by the Tories, resulted in the disgusting ‘Windrush debacle’. Patel now appears to be reviving this figure via the old chestnut ‘applying an australian-type system’. She was told in the Commons that she was talking bollocks and that it was already known this would not solve the perceived problem. By, no less, than Theresa May, who should know if anyone does.

I sometimes think these departments are so lost in corporate cultural rubbish that they’re never going to get on top of things in any sort of sensible way, when really it should be pretty straight-forward.

I also noted that in their list of potential areas where ‘illegal working’ is likely, they failed to mention (or I never saw), let’s call it ‘house help’, where the better off employ nannies, gardeners, handyperson and pay them in cash, no paperwork involved, no questions asked (or needed).

There is plenty of evidence from USA that a substantial proportion of illegal workers are actually employed in this type of work and not employed by businesses at all, but individuals who are all too happy to turn a blind eye when it comes to their own pockets.

Almost none of it, needless to say, applies to EU citizens… which is where this whole discussion started.


Quite correct.
@Bowman and others are quick to blame others for the obvious failings of the UK Government and it’s lack of funding.
It is nothing to do with EU citizens, the EU, or even EU countries… it is a failing within the UK… and it’s going to get a whole heap worse if/when we Leave the EU and the country is poorer as a result.


We might get so poor that immigrants stop bothering to come … there is already plenty of evidence of that happening since the devaluation in GBP - check NHS vacancies as an obvious example.



My wife is Taiwanese, whenever any relatives visit the UK they are issued a 6 month visa on arrival.

My youngest daughter is based in Thailand. This year she got a work permit. The previous three years every month she would go somewhere for the weekend and never had a visa problem.


Peter, that seems to confirm my view on how things work, especially the tourist (visa-exempt) part in Thailand.

Of course, the main issue here in the UK is that there is inadequate checking of who leaves, meaning over-staying is difficult to police (since it is unkown if a particular person has actually left as they should have). I certainly like the Thai approach to over-stay where there is a progressive approach with fines (and I think imprisonment) depending on the degree of over-stay. I also believe that at one point visitors are banned for up to 10 years from returning to the Kingdom.

I hope your daughter is enjoying her stay in the Kingdom.


I think I actually made that point several times, where I said that it is not possible to have illegals (either illegal immigrants or over-stayers) who are EU citizens. The issue of illegal immigrants is partially made worse by our nearest neighbour(s) (EU Countries) allowing these migrants to traverse their way through the EU to our Borders…

I note that you appear to place full responsibility at the door of the Conservatives, where the real problem is that successive governments of all persuassions has failed to address this issue sufficiently. I might also venture to suggest that the situation will not be improved any better by having either of the alternative inept parties in power.

Actually, thinking again about that last statement, it might not be true. The Marxists will of course damage the Country to such an extent that people might find it preferable to emigrate to Venezuela, and no migrant in their right mind would want to come here, thereby reducing illegal immigration to a very small number indeed.



could I just note that whilst it is very convenient for the UK to consider that refugee migrants should stay on the other side of the Channel, that this hardly recognises our responsibility for the migrant crisis by seeding the chaos in the middle east from which many of the migrants seek to escape. I would have more sympathy for “us” if we had played a fair and active role in assessing which of the would-be migrants had a fair and lawful case to seek refuge here with their settled family members. Even the promise obtained by Lord Dubbs to assess child migrants was never properly fulfilled.

Frog in a tree



I was amazed when they stopped checking people leaving. At the time I was a frequent flier and stood around waiting to be checked out.

My daughter has found having a work permit is a lot more hassle than using tourist visa’s
She is not allowed to work from home and if goes into the country overnight there is more form filling to. So when her contract ends in March she is coming home.


We have a ‘Build a wall’ mentality with respect to immigrants…exemplified by the WIndrush scandal (& recent decisions by Sajid Javid). We need a more grown up approach to this global problem and should be leading the world…it’s only going to get worse when/if the predicted impact of global warming really starts hurting the poorest parts of the world.

Brexit to me is a sign we want to raise the drawbridge to fortress England to the rest of the world. A regressive action if it does go ahead.



I suspect your daughter’s problems might be related to the recent decision by the Thai authorities to tighten up on the submission of the TM30 forms, which are meant to monitor the movement of non-Thais. [The requirement for this form has existed since 1979, but the rules have been ignored - until this year]. I have heard complaints about this from people we know who have moved to Thailand, but also from the builder from whom we bought my Partner’s house and who takes care of it for us. He has to do all the new paperwork for his employees.

This clampdown started earlier this year, but we seemed to have missed it on our last visit in July. This was the main reason for my Partner to renew her Thai passport, which means it is only me that has to worry about ensuring compliance, although it is she who would have to pay the fine if we get things wrong. It would not be an issue normally if we were tourists staying in Hotels, since they have to complete the paperwork, and pay the fines if they get it wrong.

I understand that there are a lot of immigrants to Thailand who are reconsidereing whether they wish to stay there.


Now I recognise that whatever the UK Government does will always be considered insufficient by somebody, however, a large number of refugees have been resettled within the UK.

86% of initial asylum decisions in Syrian cases gave permission to remain in the UK. This is the highest rate of recognition amongst the top ten nationalities applying for asylum in that year.

The year referred to was 2017. In addition to resettlement

The UK has committed over £2.46 billion to helping refugees in Syria and the region, making it the second largest donor to the Syrian refugee crisis since the start of the crisis in 2012.

Now whilst I accept that you probably already have all the latest up-to-date information, you might find the following briefing paper of interest, especially as it is after Dubbs. There is a link to the full report (from which the above quotes come) which is better reading than just the briefing paper.

The Syrian refugee problem is the result of the Syrian Civil War, which was an entirely internal Syrian issue. Whilst the UK took part in the later escalation of the conflict it only has limited responsibility for what has happened. One could argue that the Iraq war might have contributed to precipitating the initial conflict in Syria, and I would agree that this was a lamentable decision taken by the then Labour run administration.


Over 6.7 million people have fled conflict in Syria, and many more are displaced inside the country. Turkey is the biggest refugee hosting country in the world. At the end of 2018 Turkey was providing safety to 3.6 million Syrian refugees.

Most refugees (not just Syrians) arrive in the EU as asylum seekers, not as people being resettled as part of a scheme.
In 2018, Germany (139,555), Italy (47,885), France (41,440), Austria (20,700) and Sweden (19,605) all granted asylum to more people than the UK… which had 17,205.
(2017 was similar)

To put this into perspective, 80% of the world’s refugees are living in countries neighbouring their country of origin, often in developing countries… they aren’t all trying to get to the UK… they usually want to be home in safe conditions and with an end to conflict.

Some 414 MPs voted for the war in Iraq in 2003 including most of the Labour AND Tory benches.
Notably one of the few who voted against it was Corbyn… and one who voted for it was Johnson.

Apart from sending in special forces to Syria to train jihadist terrorists (which they referred to as the New Syrian Army Rebels) to fight in Syria against Government forces and providing them military equipment.


Are you saying the UK should relinquish its UN security council seat and withdraw from the UN agreements on refugees?

A lot of Brexiteers seem to think this is a great idea, one way or another, and apparently can’t wait to give up our U.N. security council seat, although they don’t put it in those terms.

We are likely to lose it anyway, leaving France to represent the whole of Europe, including us, and the UK to be replaced by, say, Indonesia. Johnson is no doubt already having it woven into some free trade deal as I type.

Another consequence of Little England thinking, I believe, and one more example of how Brexit will reduce the UK’s world standing.



Sorry, I do not get the jump from what I wrote to our Security Council seat. I am unaware of any proposal (from within the UK) that the UK should relinquish its seat. Such an action would certainly be undesirable.

As for France, well it looks like they might have to relinquish its permanent seat first, especially once the UK has left the EU. Should the UK remain within the EU, then its seat would also go the same way, with the EU taking over both.

Brexit will do little to reduce the UK’s standing in the world, any more than how it has been, and will continue to be, reduced by being part of the EU.

Going back to refugees, there is a limit to how many can be accepted without having a serious impact on the homogeneity of the population, since the UK is the 32nd most populated (274/sq. km) Country in the World. In fact England is the 16th (424/sq. km) most populated. Our nearest rival in this sense is The Netherlands (418/

The UK balances taking in refugees with supporting those Countries who do by providing a considerable amount of Aid.


I don’ t see how the EU could take over a seat at the UN. It is not a member state much as our Brexiter friends seem to think so.

Frog in a tree


That’s ridiculous. France will clearly be seen as the EU/European representative on the security council.

The UK will be a small island with less than 1% of the world’s population and a veto over issues that affect billions while choosing to take on an isolationist pose. It simply isn’t compatible.

India deserves a seat far more, but wont get it due to the Pakistan problem. They’re not going to stop pushing for it though.

It does, and still will have to because of U.N. obligations although a large portion of Brexiteers say that we should not and are even against foreign aid. That was my point. Not aimed at you personally, but especially at Brexit Party supporters who seem to think this is policy and Brexit was a vote for same. Many of them are sadly confused, it has to be said.

Of course, if the UK were to follow that policy as it has tried to do with exiting the EU, which has hugely damaged our world standing, then pressure will increase on the UK to relinquish its security council seat.

As I said, it wouldn’t surprise me if Johnson wasn’t prepared to bargain it away as it is becomes an increasingly difficult argument to make that both France and UK have permanent seats. Being a Tory he’ll likely see it as a chance to make a quick buck, something to sell, another part of the family silver to barter with and pawn.


This issue has nothing to do with Brexit. Please follow the link behind the word “relinquish”.

German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz on Wednesday (29 November) proposed that France give up its permanent seat on the UN Security Council and turn it into an EU seat to allow the bloc to speak with one voice on the global stage.


Sorry, leaving the EU is not being isolationist, that is just a remainer (ineffective) smoke-screen. We actually want to replace interaction with a small part of the globe with interaction with a larger proportion of the globe. Hardly isolationist.

UK’s position is the result of being one of the “winning” Countries from WW2, and also (I think) had something to do with being a nuclear power. The UK may be small but is punches significantly above its size, but then being the 5th largest economy may have something to do with that.

The UK currently spends about 0.7% of its gross national income in official development assistance (ODA), of which about 15% goes on humanitarian issues (which I think covers refugees).

Meeting the 0.7% target – which applies only to government aid flows – sets the UK apart
on the international stage; in 2017, the OECD reports that seven countries did so.
Domestically, this level of overseas aid spending is even more notable given the UK’s fiscal
environment, and in particular the significant cuts to departmental spending that have
taken place since 2010–11

The above quote is from the “The IFS Green Budget October 2018

There are sections of society (and I do not believe they are confined to one partricular side in the Brexit argument) that believe we pay too much in ODA and that these funds (at least some of them) would be better directed towards the people whose taxes pay the ODA, especially in times of austerity. Certainly seeing a large slice of this aid being paid to India, a Country rich enough to have its own Space Exploration programme, is to be considered an anomaly, although this aid has been reduced from £321m in 2012 to £95m in 2018.

The UK remained the third largest donor of the 29 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member countries in 2018 at £14.6 billion, behind the United States (£25.7bn) and Germany (£18.7bn). The UK’s share of total DAC ODA was 12.7 per cent, this is similar to 2017 (12.3 per cent). See “Final UK Aid spend 2018” for more details.