宜家連英文水平要求都無backdated...我怕工黨唔敢backdated所有PR applicants (全世界5年改10年) 喎....
民意係反移民我同意，但民意之外都要合法，否則就變民粹。
xxxxx
我俾個建議啦
咁反對BNO HOLDER居英
最最最應該係叫英國政府要求中國 (或又大家咁有心自己去做)按 中英聯合聲明 去管治香港
香港仲係符合 中英聯合聲明 要求，英國咪大條道理取消埋BNO VISA ROUTE都仲得。
我補多一句。
那怕BNO走得甩唔包括起10+1度安全
但大把skilled workers都一定會同Labour Gov打官司，呢個一定會發生。
我都想睇下到底柏拉圖自己一句 Praliment Supremacy，同埋佢個無法律背景下作出既"法律觀點"有幾真。
講真，以宜家事請發展已經愈來愈明顯睇出柏拉圖睇英國政治好片面。佢個條HSMP法律片...我真係好擔心又被打臉。
佢5月起白皮書出左到7-8月出既片都好寸，講到好盡，講到以為自己一定啱咁。但最近氣焰已經無咁寸，都會講戴返頭盔。我表示支持兼尊重。
xxxxx
按昨天的發展, NIgel Farage澄清不包括Bno & Ukarine route
今天到Labour幾個channels都"透露"同樣不包括Bno & Ukarine route
當然還未最終定案，我在想這裡的人要開始認清事實沒有?
為何英國各黨派都不包括Bno & Ukarine route?
到底是你們不了解英國政治自己大放厥詞，還是就是單純看BNO不順眼有私怨?
我知道柏拉圖本人支持英國的極右翼立場，你唔係支持中共
但同時這裡有不少人是支持中國的人因為柏拉圖的反BNO言論加入抽水，呢個都好明顯。
兩邊出發點不一樣但言論都相同:
就是不認同BNO holders是英國公民的一份子，覺得BNO和非英藉人士完全一樣。
不認同英國對BNO HOLDER英藉人士有歷史責任，BNO HOLDER今天的情況，是因為英國1984年代表當時殖民地香港人民交回中國的決定"負起責任"。
亦不認同香港"有問題"，根本"沒問題"又何來責任。
我係同意英國咁收合法同非法移民的確係會有問題，呢個我唔幫保守黨(合法移民問題)或工黨(非法移民問題)。
你唔好話我雙重標準，我係企起BNO holder呢邊，純粹因為英國的確係要付返呢個歷史責任，呢個責任係超出"移民"呢個層面。
英國對任何合法/非法移民都無責任，但BNO HOLDER係有，所以BNO HOLDER其實唔係咁表面睇係移民，你都唔會叫Ukrainian叫移民，係走難。
BNO visa route都係撤離香港呢個地方既一個措施，撤離既唔係一般人而係英藉BNO holders，根本唔係一般理解下既移民。
你地同意唔同意都好
堂堂中英聯合聲明，英國會選擇honour，呢個正正係西方民主的核心價值 - 民主契約論。
如果一個政府唔honour自己承諾，係無公信力，呢個聲明既另外一方就示範左。
當然你地大可以舉出英國史上多宗無恥行為，例如今天以巴問題正是當時英國兩邊都promise所致。
而BNO講到底係英藉，而BNO VISA係撤出香港為目的，就唔應該如外國國民般變10+1。
呢D認知，你地同唔同意都好，我相信英國各政黨都知道，所以點解我判斷唔會包括BNO VISA，所有針對BNO VISA都係NOISE。
xxxxx
Why would Labour have any incentive to call a general election before 2029? With a comfortable majority of MPs in Parliament this session, they have no apparent reason to end their governance early. The worst-case scenario in response to public pressure would likely be replacing the Prime Minister, not risking their mandate. Personally, I’m skeptical of Labour’s ideology, but I don’t believe they would easily cede power to Reform UK. If Labour can effectively address public concerns on immigration, four years is ample time to shift societal sentiment in their favor.
xxxxx
Clock is clicking. Time is running out for you guys to make noise before BNO holders getting ILR next year, cherish it when you have the opportunity.
If it proved me wrong, I shall shut up, otherwise so are you guys.
xxxxx
呢個Channel成日話BNO居英人"攞著數"，明明早在Home Office 2020年做BNO VISA impact Assessment寫左如下:
Hong Kong British National (Overseas) Visa Impact Assessment - Home Office (2020/10) - IA No: HO0381
裡面已經寫左起如果批BNO VISA既話當時評估係收益 (benefit) > 成本 (cost)
The monetised benefits of migrant spending modelled in this IA covers the proportion of spending that accrues to the Government. There may be wider indirect benefits, including to businesses that are not monetised but are considered qualitatively.
成日講BNO去英國"攞著數"，唔信自去上網搵自己睇。
政府計數點都好過鍵盤戰士個別咁睇吧?
xxxxx
你真係好叻，
清一色支持，你就話係吹水大會
最尾個個唔係Mike Tabb而係Alex Norris
佢只講"重覆講個幾句官話"你就當highlight，但明明佢講skilled working visa同BNO visa用詞好唔同差好遠，你完全唔提
你真係搏人唔睇定唔識英文?
你要講露口風，佢讚BNO visa holder contribution, 同佢講skilled working visa既差異先係有價值既口風。政府會做consultatation，MP現階段代表既民意就唔使拗，仲有幾個月自然知結果。
我唔可以唔QUOTE返呢個channel之前講交稅係責任，唔係貢獻。宜家自己出片都承認政府係指交稅係貢獻因為會攞benefit啦。
"講交稅係責任，唔係貢獻。"呢個論述已經係錯晒啦。
我唔打算回應任何re我既人，唔想睇你條片多一眼。
後補多一句俾片主:
有MP起個debate度引述網上有人帶風向，唔只一個MP咁講，放心，我絕對會同我個MP講下貴頻道，一個在Scotland既"真 . 香港人"
我見Parliament有新文件，我就貼出黎回應下拍拉圖佢話Alex Norris咩都無講
Alex Norris文字transcript:
呢一段係官話 (正是柏拉圖片中quote):
It is a long-standing point of consensus across this place that settlement is a privilege and not a right. We know that settlement in the UK brings significant benefits, so the proposals that we have set out in the immigration White Paper reflect our view that people who benefit from settling in the UK should at first make a proportionate contribution. We have heard much about the valuable contributions that hon. Members’ constituents are making. That is why, although we are setting a baseline qualifying period for settlement at 10 years, we will allow those who make meaningful contributions to reduce that period, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) referred to.
呢段起講skilled workers visa:
I turn to skilled work, the subject of the first petition. Skilled worker visa holders make an important contribution to our economy and public services, filling essential skills and labour market gaps, but for too long, sectors have become reliant on them to fill those gaps and have not sought to invest in our domestic workforce. The reforms that we have set out in the immigration White Paper are addressing the balance and reversing the long-term trends of overseas recruitment increasing, at the same time as reducing investment in skills and training and increasing levels of unemployment and economic inactivity in the UK, which I know we are all concerned about in our communities.
We implemented the first of the reforms in late July, lifting the threshold for skilled workers to RQF level 6, and we have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to advise on future changes to salary requirements and a temporary shortage list. We have established a new labour market evidence group, which met at the end of July and will continue to meet quarterly, to support our aim of tackling the underlying causes of workforce shortages and ensuring that growth-driving sectors have access to the skilled workers that they need now and into the future. I speak as someone who, until a couple of days ago, was the local growth Minister: we must support our children and schools with the same vigour, so that they get brilliant opportunities and the training that they need first.
呢段起講BNO visa:
Colleagues have talked with great passion about the Hong Kong British national overseas visa route. I want to take a moment to reflect on what the BNO route means, not just for those who have made use of it but for this country more generally. Our country has a long-standing and unique connection to the people of Hong Kong. As Hong Kong is a former British territory, many Hongkongers hold BNO status, which is a recognition of that shared history, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) said. I commend the previous Government for launching the BNO route in January 2021—I supported it in this place—as a direct response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. Through that, the UK honoured its historic and moral commitments to the people of Hong Kong by creating a bespoke immigration route for those seeking safety, stability and a future rooted in those shared values.
Since it launched, close to 225,000 people have been granted a BNO visa, and over 160,000 have arrived in the UK. Like many of the migrants across the immigration system, Hongkongers have quickly become an integral part of both our economy and local communities, with high levels of employment, education participation and community engagement. They have made their homes in key cities and regions across the UK.
In Nottingham, Hongkongers have made an extraordinary contribution, whether it is in our public services, the private sector or the community and voluntary sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) takes a great interest in this area, and a year ago we met organisations representative of the extraordinary contribution Hongkongers are making. I will stop short of saying whether I consider them to be from Nottingham now; due to local government reorganisation, that is a very sticky point, as it is for my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) and possibly for my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who mentioned Long Eaton. I am not going to go anywhere near that question.
The presence of those people is not just valued; they are making a huge positive and lasting contribution to our national life. As a Government, we recognise the significance of that community, not just for what they have done so far but for the role that they will play in the years ahead. I assure Members that this Government remain steadfast in supporting members of the Hong Kong community in the UK and all those who will arrive in the future. We remain fully committed to the BNO route, through which we will continue to welcome Hongkongers, but I do know how important the ability to obtain settled status is to the Hong Kong community. That is why I can assure them that we are listening to their views about the route to settlement, and we will continue to do so. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the BNO route will continue to apply.
Alex Norris對2個visa態度既分別顯而易見...做channel可以有立場, 但唔好講d唔講d
交稅係責任亦係貢獻 (有交稅呢個行為就係貢獻，多有多交少有少交)
支持BNO既MP唔係只得 "無晒號召力"既Chris Patten同埋HK Watch
英國人的確唔會話情操特別高尚, 但英國對BNO人士既有歷史責任, 亦對英國社會有好處, 係今次MP反映出黎既共識
呢度一直起度攻擊在英BNO群體, 但英國政界唔buy你地個套
xxxxx
一個月前，主片不停出片起度放負。
今日, 2025年9月8日, 英國時間16:30 國會正式合拼辯論working/BNO visa ILR 10+1聯署
我聽到左大半個鐘到宜家，所聽到既國會議員都係支持BNO維持5+1。
片主對英國政治了解似乎唔多啱，支持既議員絕對唔係佢講到咁少，做議員係要熟書 (唔熟都要去了解)，唔係好似片主自己亂咁UP，以個人對部分港人唔順眼就要反晒成個BNO VISA HOLDERS群體。
我無睇佢最近一個月既片，因為唔睇都知道佢講乜。起無重大新發展事件之前出片講BNO無他都係講D謠傳既野，慌死在英港人唔夠驚。
人在做天在看，片主的片都無乜views
當然事件仲係發展緊，我會繼續觀察英國政府，同時呢個片主。
如果事發展係符合佢預期既方法，我係歡迎佢打我臉，否則我會一定追住佢咬，承受返佢反晒成個BNO VISA HOLDER既行為。
原本如果佢只係講下個別人士點衰點衰，我都無乜反應，但後期佢係明顯變成打晒全部人，我就一定要追住佢咬。
未來幾個月就睇下邊個睇法正確。
xxxxx
if you review your videos, you have published 24 videos since May 17, 2025, One video in "2 months" ago, and then the next one was 7 months ago.
It's good for you making a wave of attention through publishing videos in the recent weeks. Maybe you earned views and subscribers, and also spread your message to BNO visa holders. Statistics also tells something extra, mate.
xxxxx
Thank you. I don't see any problem.
He has the right to keep making repetitive videos discussing the same points. I can also leave comments without viewing his videos. @ButchCassidyAndSundanceKid Permit me to proffer an additional observation: it is unnecessary to employ abstruse or sesquipedalian terminology, as such "volition" & "eschew" are seldom utilized in quotidian discourse and does not inherently evince superior proficiency in the English language.
xxxxx
你唔係第一個咁講，見到香港人仲返去香港就話香港唔危險。但英國定出BNO Visa嘅睇法唔係咁睇，你睇返個文件佢係講明因為第一香港國安法。第二國安法限制人權及自由及嚴重違反中英聯合聲明同破壞一國兩制。
你同意或唔同意都好，國安法一日存在香港一日都危險，英國定義就係咁簡單。
香港人仲返香港，或仲留起香港唔走，只係佢無視危險，但唔代表危險不存在，希望你明白。
Rationale for intervention
The UK Government’s decision to introduce a new Hong Kong BN(O) Visa follows the imposition by the Chinese Government of a national security law on Hong Kong. This legislation and its strict implementation restricts the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, constitutes a clear and serious breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and undermines the “one country, two systems” framework.
xxxxx
thanks for bringing this up. I could give more supplementary information on it.
According to recently declassified British cabinet documents, the UK government repeatedly pressured Portugal not to grant Portuguese nationality to Macau residents before the 1999 handover to China. This was done to prevent Hongkongers from demanding similar citizenship rights ahead of Hong Kong’s 1997 handover from Britain to China. The British were concerned that if Portugal granted full citizenship to Macau residents, it would set a precedent for Hong Kong residents to claim the same rights from the UK, which London was reluctant to do.
In contrast, Portugal did offer Portuguese citizenship and passports to many Macau residents born before 1981, allowing them full citizenship rights and the possibility to emigrate to Portugal after the handover. This policy was different from the British approach to Hong Kong residents, where only limited rights were granted through the British National (Overseas) passport without full residency rights.
So, while Portugal offered citizenship to a significant portion of Macau’s population, the UK actively discouraged Portugal from doing so to avoid similar demands from Hong Kong residents.
xxxxx
你唔係法律出身呢，就唔好講好d
法律係有好多個打官司既切入點既，你今日就講到 "勝算係零"，只能表示尊重，但未來先知。
修正下你講話除左二位上議院議員支持香港人
下議院最少唔止一個Tory, Lib Dem MP, even Labor MP都有支持BNO Visa維持原況。你係完全當無回事。
不過我明你立場，唔提係無問題。
又好似你講review date 10/2025個份文件 FULL ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
Cost & Revenue明明寫住係透過BNO VISA英國政府係有錢賺，你又係無提到
一直起度話香港人無貢獻，攞英國著數，幾咁差，都係立場。
Charles Russell Speechlys (16 May 2025):
Retrospectively changing Indefinite Leave to Remain rules for those currently on the 5 year route to a 10 year route is unlawful and unfair
Paul McCarthy.
This week has been mostly about reassuring clients that the Immigration White Paper is not yet law and we will have to wait and see what the proposed new rules will be. This has been particularly daunting for clients who may be applying for indefinite leave to remain in 2026 and are being told that the rug will be pulled from under their feet and they will have to wait until 2031.
It seems from media responses from Government Ministers this week that memories are short on this settled issue.
In 2006, the then UK government introduced changes to the rules for a now-defunct visa programme called the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP). This affected the criteria for extending the visa and obtaining indefinite leave to remain. These changes were applied retrospectively to individuals already in the UK under the HSMP scheme, which led to significant concerns and challenges for those affected.
In the case of HSMP Forum Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 664 (Admin) (08 April 2008), the High Court ruled that:
Retrospective Application: Applying the new rules retrospectively to individuals who had already been granted leave was unfair and unlawful.
Legitimate Expectation: The court recognised that migrants had a legitimate expectation that the rules under which they were initially granted leave would continue to apply to them.
Outcome: The High Court ruled in favour of the HSMP Forum, preventing the government from applying the new rules retrospectively to those already in the UK under the scheme. This decision ensured that affected individuals could continue to apply for indefinite leave to remain under the original terms of their entry.
The case was significant because it upheld the principle of legitimate expectation and fairness in immigration policy, ensuring that changes to immigration rules should not disadvantage those who had already made life-changing decisions based on the existing framework. It highlighted the importance of transparency and consistency in the application of immigration rules.
Should the current Government decide to go ahead with the proposed retrospective application of the 10-year route to those currently on the 5-year route, I strongly suspect there will be a U-turn once the Courts apply this 2008 judgment.
UK immigration law is constantly changing. It is important to take timely legal advice to reduce the risk of friction at the border and to ensure compliance with the UK immigration rules. If you have immigration questions, please contact Paul McCarthy.
最少起碼人地係英國律師行，你就肯定唔係法律出身就發表偉論....
我祝你係啱啦，唔係真係好樣衰...鬼叫你幾個月前咁高調
xxxxx
樹大有枯枝，人多有白痴。
呢個channel成日捉住d枯枝白痴講話全部香港人點低質，一d都唔公平。
最過份係佢攞住有人話搞一次倫敦遊行要用政府幾多十萬鎊，直頭扭曲晒成個遊行既正當性同為英國著想既立場。
英國defense review都承認中國係一個threat，多人參與同本地人一條心都可以話搵位入香港人係咩心態? 呢個正正係公民參與融入當地既表現。
以下係我估既姐，無任何証據既。
柏拉圖佢本身係香港人，多年前黎左英國已經入左藉但無BNO VISA ROUTE啦當然。
佢宜家係站起英國人角度去睇香港人，尤其係呢個數量，覺得數量少質數唔好影響都未必大，但宜家咁大量所以佢以一個好高準標去衡量香港人，會睇唔順眼。
當然留言區有唔少附和者，有D係留港派抽水，有D就都睇得出佢地覺得英國要既係富豪，專材，其他都應該死開。
我當然唔會同意呢D睇法，因為富豪同專材人數從來都唔會好多，世界都搶緊
一般移民apple-to-apple，香港BNO visa holder真係一d唔失禮，真係唔明做咩有人要為枯枝白痴而起個channel日日帶風向。
我之前都回應過 "UK’s historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong"，英國唔會對烏克蘭，敍利亞，阿富汗有"historic commitment"，我再一針見血咁講係"香港人從來無話過要回歸中國，係英國代香港人回歸中國"，你唔會見到獨立左既國家(印度, 馬拉, 新加坡等)仲有任何形式既英國護照。如果當初係香港人要求歸中國，你想英國發本BNO俾你都咪諗！攞住BNO就係英國子民黎。BNO holder搞成咁英國有責任架。英國政府睇既係住起香港既人權自由，睇既係中國仲有無honour中英聯合聲明。呢D因素唔會同一般既移民相比到，因為BNO holders係英國子民黎，係有得起英國投票，英國本身都要honour返BNO holders。我只係知道香港有危機，國安大法無遠弗屆，最受影響既就係留起香港 (包括BNO holder)既人，黎生呢D企得最前既BC有生之年仲出唔出到黎都無人知。理論上就算英國本地人一樣可以犯國安大法，咁都唔叫危機係咪要肥彭俾國安通輯先算？你用移民用幾多福利同一條咁惡既法相比會唔會睇野格局太細?
BNO visa route係救香港人離開香港，而你(地)呢就不停帶風向想在英港人離開最令我氣憤。
xxxxx
PR前攞唔到福利就緊既
PR後可以攞福利，而攞唔攞一來係要睇條件，二來亦睇香港人本人想唔想攞
後生既 - 就話香港人要求local fee讀大學係攞著數，但呢個係只要就學年齡同埋有PR身份就entitle架喎，唔係"攞著數"。佢地係本地人畢業後係成為英國工作骨幹喎 (唔係外地生讀完可能回國)，只睇呢三年就話攞著數?
退休老既 - 就話攞英國福利。第一，如果係已退休，連最少供左NI 10年都無機會多數唔會攞到State Pension，所謂福利來來去去都係NHS為主姐。香港人普通比英國本地人有錢呢個應該無乜好爭辯。
壯年既 - 多數都搵錢架啦，呢D係香港人入晒血，你估好似平地人咁躺平咩
xxxxx
我預左你會講呢個點。
所以我先講香港人有錢帶過黎英國，退得休個D多數都係最有錢個批。你可以話佢地都會睇NHS，只不過佢地都有能力睇私家醫生。NHS呢個睇法只要係人口有增長自然需求就會大左，唔限於退休人士/長者。本身NHS個制度已經係unsustainable要改革，人口再多的確係會差左，但唔係香港人本身有咩問題。
xxxxx
@plato6833 我最唔鍾意你既片對香港人既態度
好似香港人有原罪咁，得罪左你。
你既咀臉好差。我無subscribe你但有bookmark你，就係要入黎反駁你既睇法。
同埋到底係咪會係你日吹夜吹成10+1，我都會放長雙眼。
xxxxx
@Cchan1230 我都講左, 一個PR讀大學係會留起英國打工做野，成為未來英國既勞工人口。點同international student黎英國讀書後係回國 (假設都係咁，唔會大部分都留到英 graduate visa) ，咁一個PR身份畢業後都係回饋返個社會，同本地英國學生係一樣架喎。
要求HOME FEE唔算攞著數吧?
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219 所以按你咁講
英國唔好有人口流入最好? 要流入後生 (未來社會新力軍), 壯年 (現在搵錢有貢獻), 老年 (有錢帶入黎) 都唔得，你要外星人?
我想指出，如果以移民質素黎講，唔好同富豪比，香港人移民質素同財力已經算高，呢個channel成日起度唱香港人幾差，我係唔同意既。
xxxxx
@Cchan1230 你要印度，烏克蘭，敍利亞人同香港人比，你覺得一樣財力同可以回饋到社會就一樣啦 (講緊平均)
我的確對英國吸納香港人唔會視為負擔，而係多左對英國勞動人口，對未來工作人口，對"填補走左好多既百萬富翁"既財政，對英國係正面多於負面既
specific回應埋你話我assume會留啫。咁我都同樣講就算英國人都可以去異地打工。所有野都係講平均計。有citizen, 有pr多數都留起本地做野，咁local fee有咩問題?
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219 回應1: 貢獻。交稅固然係責任，但就算你睇埋10+1文件指既貢獻都係指交稅為主。我個人覺得既係責任亦係貢獻，咁你話唔算貢獻咁你地(包埋柏拉圖)就繼續啦
回應2: 又買車又買樓係個人需要。呢個的確又係事實，咁又係你地講多左人口多左社會支出，咁多人口多左起英國消費又點解唔計推動英國經濟呢?
回應3: 大部分港式茶餐廳收現金9折。呢個呢，你可以睇返柏拉圖最早期既片，佢叫新黎既香港人起唐人街打工唔好要求出糧時出足，做野唔好咁急促要融入當地，老唐人個套係咁。所以你指"大部分港式茶餐廳收現金9折" 個老細係咪新來英香港人都未知呢? 而且係柏拉圖指既"行規"喎，而且你指既舖頭咁做咪就代表個個老細避稅，代表佢一個人何來代表性?
xxxxx
@Cchan1230 我唔介意柏拉圖拍片鬧 " 有太空人帶住仔女唔做野等入籍既又有; 做food truck 收cash 唔交稅又有; 申請左BNO 之後同公司申請work from oversea 繼續出香港糧係香港交稅既亦有, " 呢D人
只不過呢D人就係呢D人，係咪佔多數定少數?
我係好唔同意佢係鬧"香港人"而套晒呢D行為落"香港人"度
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219 就算係咁，EU學生都只係讀書，唔會係未來本地就業人口呢個唔會改變，而得到PR身份既人係多數會係未來英國勞動人口。
呢個分別依然起度。我睇唔到點解支持會成為未來勞動人口用local fee既問題。
EU學生讀完書都係會走，就真係對"英國社會無貢獻"啦
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219
唔知係咪YOUTUBE刪左我呢個留言, 我再POST 過
回應1: 貢獻。固然係責任，但就算你睇埋10+1文件指既貢獻都係指交稅為主。我個人覺得既係責任亦係貢獻，咁你話唔算貢獻咁你地(包埋柏拉圖)就繼續啦
回應2: 又買車又買樓係個人需要。呢個的確又係事實，咁又係你地講多左人口多左社會支出，咁多人口多左起英國消費又點解唔計推動英國經濟呢?
回應3: 大部分港式茶餐廳收現金9折。呢個呢，你可以睇返柏拉圖最早期既片，佢叫新黎既香港人起唐人街打工唔好要求出糧時出足，做野唔好咁急促要融入當地，老唐人個套係咁。所以你指"大部分港式茶餐廳收現金9折" 個老細係咪新來英香港人都未知呢? 而且係柏拉圖指既"行規"喎，而且你指既舖頭咁做咪就代表個個老細避稅，代表佢一個人何來代表性?
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219 你錯啦
我係唔同意你指 "無大陸人起香港消費，香港經濟死得啦" 既意思，我只係指出的確香港外來人口係多左英國本地消費呢個事實而已。
啱呀，英國佬係睇錢，咁你話印度，烏克蘭，敍利亞人同香港人平均邊D人有錢d? 邊d人最少機會用社會福利?
一直起度數落香港人，但移民人口中香港人真係咁差咩?
仲要以個別例子就套落所有香港人度，公平咩?
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219 你地D邏輯又好奇怪
攞錢入黎英國 (例如MPF) 又唔係俾英國政府，唔係貢獻
起英國洗錢，又話係個人需要，唔係貢獻
打工交稅，又係責任，唔係貢獻 (10+1文件無指個point-based systems係點，但你估下貢獻同有無納稅有關?)
你又話英國政府睇錢喎，咁政府點從人民攞錢呢? 咪係交稅囉，係咪消費既VAT間接稅囉，個邏輯講唔通既。
最得意係，從來無define咩叫貢獻喎
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219 明白。
你講緊既係投資移民同專才移民既人，根本唔係BNO visa route可相比既野。
我真係同意係earn, 唔係特權喎，真係同意。咁咪俾人知點先earn到，點先有貢獻。
一味ban一咪話香港人差，直白啲講啦，起你眼中BNO visa route直頭應該cancel先啱吧?
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219 Hong Kong British National (Overseas) Visa Policy Statement (2020)
Forward寫:
BN(O) citizens in Hong Kong are in a unique position, which is why I have designed a policy which is specific to them in the wider immigration system. It will not set a precedent.
My offer to BN(O) citizens is a very generous one. I am not imposing skills tests or minimum income requirements, economic needs tests or caps on numbers.
Overview 寫:
This is in recognition of the unprecedented circumstances in Hong Kong, the UK’s historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong through the Joint Declaration, and our unique obligations towards those who elected to retain their ties with the UK through obtaining BN(O) status.
以上係英國政府立場，最少係當時保守黨既立場 (不過BNO VISA係跨黨派支持當時)
多謝你正名BNO Visa唔係人道簽証。係呀，我search "human"呢隻字起個policy statement真係搵唔到架。我都覺得唔係，佢係"not set a precedent(不會作為前例)"，指咁做係特殊唔會再有。後來俾英國政府歸入人道簽証又唔係我地叫既。
先指出你覺得香港無危機但"唔代表英國政府咁睇" (原句俾返你回應我老中青個個留言)。BNO Visa開首已經確立左香港係有危機 (unprecedented circumstances) 先要開放呢條route。而我可以好負責任咁講呢個危險係無變過仲愈來愈差。英國政府睇既係住起香港既人權自由，睇既係中國仲有無honour中英聯合聲明。我都想反駁柏拉圖好耐架啦。佢覺得香港無問題叫佢返香港大叫打倒XX黨。佢話香港人仲返香港多次呢D我都唔鼓勵既，一個係對面政權做d乜，而香港人返香港唔代青個危機不存在。根本柏拉圖就唔識政治，中國一打台灣，香港海空立即封鎖，陸路只能返大陸。其實係有戰爭風險，英國承唔承受得起少則幾十萬BNO多則二百萬BNO英國子民救唔到 (最壞情況)? 開個BNO visa router從頭到尾都唔係從經濟出發 (公黨都支持架)，policy paper寫得好明白。你宜家工黨因為移民太多，柏拉圖就起度大吹特吹香港人幾唔值得黎英國。我之前都回應過佢一個點 "UK’s historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong"，英國唔會對烏克蘭，敍利亞，阿富汗有"historic committment"，我再一針見血咁講係"香港人從來無話過要回歸中國，係英國代香港人回歸中國"，你唔會見到獨立左既國家(印度, 馬拉, 新加坡等)仲有任何形式既英國護照。但香港人有咪係原因囉，你地識唔識架? 攞住BNO就係英國子民黎。BNO holder搞成咁英國有責任架。
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219 我好理性，認真。
我睇唔到我地點"目標一致"法。
我係知道BNO visa route係救香港人離開香港，而你(地)呢就不停帶風向想在英港人離開。
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219 我講既野都係來自英國BNO VISA policy statement，唔係一張廢紙英國唔算數。唔只英國要中國honour中英聯合聲明，英國自己都要honour，好合理。
BNO visa route係英國如何起呢個情況下可以honour到BNO holder既措施，佢既意義係遠遠大過移民帶來既問題。
你只有起呢個高度去睇政府點諗，點面對國際社會，點面對對子民承諾，你先會起一個啱既角度去睇問題。
我明白起一般英國人眼中對香港人係一無所知添，覺得移民多唔鍾意我都明白。
但歷史責任係事實，好多MP都知道，當然同一般英國人考慮會唔同。
xxxxx
@Cchan1230 我無all or nothing. 我都話人多有白痴。但白痴既人多定正常既人多？而且柏拉圖屌既對象只係話「遊行浪費倫敦政府31萬」個個人咩？佢係鬧晒在英群體喎！好似成個群體都係諗。到底係我似大陸人咁覺得係香港人一定好，定柏拉圖鬧香港人一定衰？
我真係忍左佢好耐架啦。佢唔係專登拍多條片用個別例子黎鬧成個香港人群體，我無咁火滾。佢啲片2022年時都無咁明顯敵意。係後期好似得罪左佢咁條條片起度數，針對成個群體。
同埋個重點係BNO visa救人離開英國，英國對BNO子民負起歷史責任。柏拉圖呢啲人就起度講好多「少數白痴小事」，對比起會坐牢坐終身既嚴重程度視而不見。英國普通人佢未必會理咁大局，但英國政府唔應該無大局觀。
係上面D人話交稅唔係貢獻，問我交幾多稅有咩意義?
我可以話你知我交緊Higher Rate (40%)既，起英國黎講已經唔會係低薪就夠。我一個人黎英國無仔無女。我問埋Perplexity AI, In the 2024-25 tax year, about 6.31 million taxpayers are liable to the higher rate of income tax (40%) or above, which is approximately 16.2% of the income tax-paying population。
我都係同一句，我一個人無代表性。柏拉圖專登搵差既例子都唔係一個普遍香港人現象，就係我不滿佢既主要地方，以偏概全。
xxxxx
@kwokyinwong1219 我再深思你話 "重有真係唔好成日講話BNO visa係人道簽証，人道簽証嘅定義係申請人喺原居地受到政治迫害，會有坐監，限制出入境或死亡嘅風險，但好多香港人過嚟三年都唔知返左幾多次香港，又去日本，但又可以喺香港自由出入境，咁呢啲人有咩人道危機呢請問？你有冇見烏克蘭人得閒返去基輔shopping探親㗎"
成條國安大法放起你頭上，已經斬左部份人頭，對你黎講都唔係危機，睇唔到係危機
對唔住，我真係忽然想問，你唔係因政治原因而申請BNO VISA，你係咩原因申請呀? 似乎你先係全心攞著數個D人喎。
只要係因為政治原因，只要係感到害怕已經足夠合理申請BNO VISA，除此之外申請既人，唔係正正你地口中 "見有著數就攞埋佢"咩?
本住人道救人立場，我原本都唔會去過問原因。係呢度成人話香港人攞英國著數，你又係BNO VISA holder，但又唔意識香港有危機，咁你做咩離開香港黎英國呀?
xxxxx
@Freeman-g7g 按柏拉圖標準，CoCo哥都唔值得PR
佢有setup公司，去避稅少貢獻，唔應該俾PR
佢英文又唔係好，唔應該俾PR
佢仲係成日香港前香港後，YOUTUBE對象都係香港人，唔融入，唔應該俾PR
佢帶埋一家大細，個女又免費讀英國學校攞免費著數，同埋佢都懶醒講走精面，唔應該俾PR
xxxxx
吓，成個回應只係重覆返白皮書既野
講impact又只係繼續potential
其實真係答左等於無答喎。
尤其片主指"最重要個兩句".....明明個回應只係重覆緊白皮書官腔...又唔係針對BNO，佢就講到係咁
我唔係話無可能收緊，但片主睇法就明顯覺得係想收緊，仲要話出左好多片話俾人話會
我睇左唔少片，片主係對"新來英香港人"係反感/敵視。
用詞好難聽，講到好似人人都無貢獻/漏稅/唔融入/當自己係英國衣食父母等等，我真係唔清楚片主係見到D咩。
參與示威遊行有咩問題? 明顯係表達對英國本土議題，英國國家安全既關注。咁又有問題?
咁都話"多花英國政府錢"既話? 我直接懷疑片主係咪中共間碟好了。
我既立場係可會可唔會，點到即止。工黨現階段都係答左等於無答，無咩重磅。
xxxxx
今次我覺得片主批評在英港人過分左
過分在於佢引述既在英港人"交稅係恩典，做左英國人衣食父母"，我唔覺得呢個係主流。
在英港人的平均財富比本地人高，呢個只係事實陳述。有帶錢來英國生活同消費，既係需要同時亦的確帶動左經濟活力都係事實。我無見到香港人有出口話"無左我地英國等死"呢D言論。
片主要咁講我都想聽下出處。
5+1變10+1起法理上站不住腳，唔係片主講"一開始文件第一頁就寫住可以進行修改"，一開始係講明第五年會做review
review唔等同修改咁簡單，更唔會backdate，可以既話不如第4年364日黎講BNO visa scheme作廢，又叫合理?
xxxxx
@plato6833 可能片主見到既野同我見到既野有區別
片主會咁講我係相信，最少以佢所見所聞，係"主流"
個別人會咁諗我唔會反對，但如果要講成係主流咁講呢個我係點都唔會同意
我睇埋片主個呢LINK，改變BNO scheme的確唔使立法，但同樣過去有打到上high court係話英國政府咁做係敗訴。
法理上片主講既唔一定係啱，最少我相信咁做會有人會有法律行動。
xxxxx
@plato6833
有過往官司案例在前，我看不出何以咁肯定地說勝算是零。但我都對此表示尊重。
既然大家都係建設性留言，我都俾出更多有關BNO Visa看法。
Hong Kong British National (Overseas) Visa Policy Statement (July 2020):
Overview Section:
This is in recognition of the unprecedented circumstances in Hong Kong, the UK’s historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong through the Joint Declaration, and our unique obligations towards those who elected to retain their ties with the UK through obtaining BN(O) status.
以上係截自BNO Visa Policy Statement既一段，要了解咩叫"historic committment" 同埋 "unique obligations"既意思，就要睇埋BNO Passport既出現同歷史背景
1. The British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) status and passport were created in 1987 specifically for Hong Kong residents who were British Dependent Territories citizens (BDTCs) by connection with Hong Kong.
2. The main reason for issuing BN(O) passports was to allow Hong Kong BDTCs to retain a form of British nationality and maintain a connection to the UK after the handover, since they would lose their BDTC status on 1 July 1997.
以上可以睇出
1. BNO holders都係曾經既BDTC，都係英國既子民
2. 攞得BNO passport既人都係自願去keep住同英國既聯繫，最少起法理上有咁做。呢個係第一個英國對BNO holders有obligation同historic commitment既切入點
另外，要知道香港離開英國時
1. 有部分人係無法得到中國籍又但起香港出世，呢D人唔可以無國藉，最後亦係按法理安排直接得到英藉。
2. 香港人係無選擇過離開英國 (唔似印度, 馬來西亞, 新加坡等等要求獨立)，而英國係假定中國會遵守中英聯合聲明而決定"放棄"香港，先會催生出廢BDTC而出現BNO。獨立左既國家既人唔會再同英國有關係(除左仲叫Commonwealth)，佢地唔會仲有本British National Passport，但香港係英國方面放棄既，香港人無話過要獨立或歸中國，呢個係有一個好根本性分別做成obligation & historic commitment.
現在中英聯合聲明已成歷史文件，BNO holder其實係應該要變回BDTC才合理 (現在大部分BDTC已轉成BC)。
雖然道理上英國係理虧 (的確係英國放棄了自己子民搞到今日咁)，我明白主導權在英國手中，所以唔好話BNO5+1變10+1唔合理，其實係應該要平權先啱。呢個係真真實實一個要還既債黎，尤其如果香港情況繼續惡化到一個點直頭已返唔到去, 例如開戰
同樣係humanitarian category, 但對烏克蘭係唔會有obligation OR historic commitment，按比例BNO visa應該只會比其他人道簽待遇更好，唔會更差才對。BNO is British National，唔係片主講到同其他既無分別，obligation, historic commitment已經說明左。個人係覺得片主矮化左BNO呢個身份。我地係選民可以見MP，可以透過voting同BC一樣一票既影響力。
我明白片主出發點係想警惕在英港人要做個平常本地人，在地生活。我明既。大家都係議事論事。
No comments:
Post a Comment