It's plausible but I have yet to hear anyone advocate one without the racist language testing rules Australia uses that have an inherent white bias.

It's specifically racist to give zero points to someone whose English skills are classed as competent.

It punishes a lot of people who have skills in other areas if they are learning English as a second third or fourth language.

Being from a native English speaking country and speaking the language at a "superiors level" because it is your first and possibly only language is valued as high as having a doctorate and it is worth more than having eight years experience of the past ten years working in whatever chosen profession the application is in.

I want a doctor with eight years experience and just competent English not one who can very eloquently explain his mistake to my next of kin.

That some people are getting over the unnecessarily biased hurdles out of two billion people populations doesn't change the facts.

Do they dock points for being fluent in talking bollocks?

When a neo nazi party in germany comes into power Imma lay the blame of it squarely on your leftist.

Phill is right about the Australian system - not just in terms of language - giving an advantage to applicants from Europe and North America who e.g. have certificates and records that prove their competence in a particular field in a manner acceptable to the Australian system (e.g. certificates from college courses rather than having learnt on the job on a one-to-one basis with an experience practitioner).

The thing is that most of that also applies to the immigration system of any country - the EU though adds to this by giving a list of white-majority countries who have to be given priority.

Well she should at least listen and try to work out why there were no groups of a scale comparable to AfD or Pegida under Kohl and Schroder and there are under her. She doesn't have to do everything they say obv.

There is currently some disagreement over whether Article 50 would need to come before Parliament.

But former journalist Baroness Wheatcroft said if it did, "the Lords might actually delay things".

See link below for full account of the latest twisting in the wind of Brexit repercussions. This Baroness Wheatcroft does a disserve to her sex. She should save being a twit to personal and private railings against her husband during dinner.


House of Lords could delay Brexit, peer claims


The link below provides information on the gaudy House of Drones:

What the lords does

It absolutely must come before parliament - a non-binding advisory referendum cannot be acted upon without a majority vote of parliament - it's the whole purpose of us electing these fools. And the whole purpose of such a referendum is to advise our members of parliament of the will of the people.

They would probably have to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. And, as the House is mostly Remain, that could be a problem.

Thanks for the link, Zeno. Thought they just sit there with their wigs, but looks they are taking care of the people. Delaying Brexit would also be a super thing to do.

Lords, stand up!

Then we finally get to test the nukes on their intended target.

That's outrageous! Who voted for them? Does anybody know who they are?

Since when is a language competency test racist. Especially since it accepts a lot of different tests and can be taken at the embassy. Chinese don't seem to have any problems passing it and some of our friends that passed still seriously struggle with English conversation.

^ It's arguably unnecessary given that the best way to learn a language is living in a country that uses it. It's a nice bonus when someone can hit the ground running but its importance in the points system is disproportionate so one has to wonder what the real motivation is.

http://www.visabureau.com/australia/...ints-test.aspx

To get the full 20 points - lol worth as much as a PhD - one needs IELTS 8 (the boundary between C1 and C2), which in my 14 years experience as a language teacher is very very rare in people just educated in the school system of a non-English-speaking country.

Of course it's up to you how you decide who you take. There are no second and third generation "British Australians", only Australians - so if cultural homogenity is your aim you're running a strategy that seems designed to promote it without being absolutely explicit.

Actually I'm already regretting posting the link - pretty soon we are going to have Remainers posting stuff like "Leavers want an Australian-style points system, but that system gives extra points for having worked in Australia, why is that appropriate for Britain?" - and not realising you can just change the points targets and how points are awarded.

It is a skilled migration visa. Not much work in Australia if you can't speak English. Those jobs that are valid for skilled immigration and don't need English have exceptions. Plus you don't need 20 points which is sometimes painfully obvious when we get candidates for a job that needs both English and an Asian language.

Explain in a non discriminatory way why EU agrees free trade deals (goods and services) with African countries but specifically excludes free movement from said trade deals then?

The EU believes in free movement as a major cornerstone of its development, and according to several posters here migrants give economic boosts to host countries, so why are African countries excluded in such a way?

If total free movement is the goal agreeing deals where you exclude this, at your own request, seems counter productive. I guess the only conclusion to make is that free movement is not the goal, if you happen to be a poor African country.

Looks discriminatory to me.

Yet the UK seems to be expected to accept everyone who wants to migrate into the UK at once?

Re: your question I have no problem with migrants, unlike you I don't discriminate according to nationality.

It's a numbers game, however many we can accommodate are welcome to come. I just don't agree with you in that we should discriminate against non EU citizens who want to come to the UK and give priority to EU citizens. Sorry, it's racist to give preferential treatment to EU citizens over African and Asian citizens, no matter how you try to dress it up.

Of course it's not racist. Don't you realise that the EU contains many different ethnicities eg people whose parents are Asian or African?

Why is it really bad for a country to control its own immigration levels but really good for Europe to control its own immigration levels again?

Neither is good but the latter is progress.

So says you. What god or gods gave you Chez, my old friend, the blind and gruesome authority to decide what is progress for the rest of us on this sorry blue orb? Apollo? Artemis? Richard Nixon? The CEO of Goldman Sachs? Come clean and no waffling.

So says me. That's all, no gods and all the better for it. Borders be an historical blip. One day people will be bemused about them.

Others may disagree of course but hopefully we can agree without too much nitting that bigger no border areas is progress towards no borders. Therefore it's not hypocritical or mistaken to support the EU over the UK on the basis of free movement.

the roman empire was the biggest no border zone in the world

idk why you think the world is developing into bigger and bigger states, there is no evidence for that

A peacenik huh Chez. That's Ok, I still like ya. Carry on.

Well surely that's up to the potential employer to decide. If you can find a job then you speak well enough - or at least the employer thinks you will pick it up in a shorter time than it takes to complete a PhD, when you actually come and live in the country.

That visa is to get into the country without a job offer (sponsor) If you have an employer that is fine with your limited English then they can sponsor you and points don't matter in that case.