Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them

The people have spoken

These are the values that are being imported .

Out of interest, which EU country is your example from?

If there was a visa based entry system would this guy be denied entry?

My concern is we change a system based on a few anecdotes about people in that system. I'm sure I've bored people with this before, but I live in the village with the 2nd highest number of incapacity benefits claimants (by population) in Wales. The number 2 spot is less than a mile away. They are ex-mining villages and ex-miners are likely to suffer from ailments in later life that make it hard to work. I know there are people who are gaming the system. But I'd rather a few people did so that valid claimants don't suffer. For me it is the same argument about immigration and integration. You can condem everyone because of the actions of a few, or you can take the hit and enjoy the overall benefit. And if anyone wants numbers I am happy to dig out the figures to show the net economic benefit from immigration in the UK.
 
There was that's why you were asked to clarify your points & challenged.If criminals entering the UK are a significant danger then you first have to back up the argument with some facts & then we can debate what's to be done & at what cost.I wonder how many deaths on the roads could be prevented with speed limiters & breathalysers fitted to all vehicles? The technology exists.
Of course the rape & murder of a child is far more emotive which is why it's been used in this debate.

No it was used because it was the first one that came up google. I see you are also in the habit of attributing things to people incorrectly and without foundation. So you are happy with known convicted criminals to enter the U.K.? It appears you don’t have an issue with known convicted criminals coming into the U.K. and living here with their past unknown either. Extraordinary.
So you require some statistical evidence that known offenders convicted of serious crimes are more likely to reoffend than someone with no criminal past? Sometimes things are so obvious they really shouldn’t need to be explained, unless of course your just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.
 
Out of interest, which EU country is your example from?

If there was a visa based entry system would this guy be denied entry?

My concern is we change a system based on a few anecdotes about people in that system. I'm sure I've bored people with this before, but I live in the village with the 2nd highest number of incapacity benefits claimants (by population) in Wales. The number 2 spot is less than a mile away. They are ex-mining villages and ex-miners are likely to suffer from ailments in later life that make it hard to work. I know there are people who are gaming the system. But I'd rather a few people did so that valid claimants don't suffer. For me it is the same argument about immigration and integration. You can condem everyone because of the actions of a few, or you can take the hit and enjoy the overall benefit. And if anyone wants numbers I am happy to dig out the figures to show the net economic benefit from immigration in the UK.
The net benefit of immigration is well documented, as is the fact that immigrants are actually less likely to claim benefits than the lazy feckless brits.
What is often incorrectly attributed to the leave camp though is that they want a total ban on immigration. Whilst some certainly think that plenty don’t, they just want immigration control which is something entirely different.
 
Where is this “legal requirement” written in the legislation?

Its written into everything , if you do not belong a recognized minority you are a second class citizen .

I'm an immigrant i came all the way from the Isle of Man (carrying only a British/EU citizen passport for I.D)
At the time my health was such that i was forbidden to leave a hospital bed to use a toilet . The benefits office sent me to an immigration office in Cardiff , i can't remember how many hours i wasted there mostly while they tried to find somebody who spoke English well enough to interview me .

When i gave them my national insurance number they got all excited about the fact i have started paying into the system before i was actually old enough to do so which is ironic because only minutes later they informed me i am entitled to no benefits or assistance at all "because they can't access my national insurance records"

Had i binned my passport and talked gibberish i'd probably own several houses now all paid for by the taxpayer.

Out of interest, which EU country is your example from?

While typing i thought he was Polish (because i know he lived worked and owns property there) but Helen just informed me he and his brother originate from Romania (where they also own property) and his wife who is pretty much his legally owned slave is from Prague . He basically worked his way through Europe figuring out how to work the system to his advantage and then he hit the jackpot and landed in the UK where he now owns 2 very presentable properties - on the wages of an unskilled cleaner .

He's an intelligent guy , can't fault him for that , so he knows where to go who to speak to and what to say , i guess that's how his younger brother who followed much later who is unskilled , unsociable , uninterested in work , keen on recreational drugs and fast cars somehow ended up owning his own garage , i don't know much about the garage but it doesn't take a huge stretch of imagination to assume the taxpayer paid for it and it seems very unlikely anyone legal works there doing much of anything honestly .
 
So you are happy with known convicted criminals to enter the U.K.? It appears you don’t have an issue with known convicted criminals coming into the U.K. and living here with their past unknown either. Extraordinary.
i dont live in the UK but no & no is the answer.
So you require some statistical evidence that known offenders convicted of serious crimes are more likely to reoffend than someone with no criminal past?
No but some evidence that foreigners are such a danger that Brexit is the only solution would be handy.
 
Brexit is the only solution because being an undemocratic blind callous profit driven organization of near psychopathic arrogance backed up by trillions of dollars the EU is impervious to sanity .

For two years the debate has been about how to ignore a letter of complaint from 17 and a half million people , and if you look at Europe as a whole its plain to see that number is but a drop in the ocean when you consider all those who would like to lodge their complaint but are denied .

The dreamers are obviously wrong so the idealists only have to threaten and insult them until they go away . That's sarcasm by the way human nature will ultimately decide the fate of the EU .
 
Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them
i dont live in the UK but no & no is the answer.

No but some evidence that foreigners are such a danger that Brexit is the only solution would be handy.
As I stated at the beginning of this immigration played no part in my decision making process.
I have suggested nowhere that I think that foreigners are such a danger that brexit is the only solution.
Once again you are attributing statements and beliefs which are entirely without foundation. Is this some sort of remain pathological response?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pat
We won't be leaving.
Unfortunately Frank you may be right, the referendum will be ignored;

so more than two thirds voted to leave and less than one third voted remain.jpg
 
I haven't given up , they are trying to make it a kind of would you like to drown in hot or cold water question because the EU and their proponents truly believe the opposing electorate are simply sheep to be herded .

In answer to the "Delay delay delay" calls , do it please because at least 70% of voters have lost faith in democracy . There's nobody to vote for in a general election so yeah delay - then i can vote for Farage .

Whats the alternative ? to not vote at all ..........
 
@Shayne .. the ultimate alternative is to joing the wall and be the real options .
 
The worst solutioin is do nothing, and delay. That just prolongs the uncertainty which is very damaging.
 
When you look at the currency markets, the uncertainty makes the £ drop in value... when there is something a bit more certain it goes up.

However, prior to the Referendum, it was worth about 10-15% more across the board, so there's still some ground to make up.
 
When you look at the currency markets, the uncertainty makes the £ drop in value... when there is something a bit more certain it goes up.

However, prior to the Referendum, it was worth about 10-15% more across the board, so there's still some ground to make up.

My pension dropped about 10% it was mostly invested in the U.K. so I knew it would and was trying to get it transferred out to a company where I could allocate it to funds of my own choosing but the process got delayed due to address changes etc so took longer than it should have. I finally got it swapped at the end of December and reallocated it to a selection of more worldwide funds and varied markets. since then it’s gained about half the losses back, not bad in just over 3 weeks!
 
I’m looking at retiring later this year or beginning of next. Fortunately, virtually all of my pension is in one of the defined benefit, final salary based schemes so is unaffected by the ups and downs of the stock market but the scheme was closed last year in favour of the preferred (by employers) defined contribution scheme which is but is still doing ok at the moment. I’ll get my state pension at 66. I just scraped in at age 59, those 2 years older will qualify at 67. Unless it’s changed again of course!
 
I don't think most people like leaving anymore in the light of vast new evidence so I would think a new referendum would be fair.
 
Robert Peston's on point, as usual.....

"We are witnessing a titanic struggle between the executive - personified by the prime minister - and parliament.
That much is true.

But is this anti-democratic or grotesquely unconstitutional or a coup or an attempt by a handful of arrogant MPs to shamelessly refuse to implement the revealed will of the British people that the UK should leave the European Union?

Because today you will hear and read the widespread charge of treachery against backbench Tories like Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles, Nicky Morgan, Sir Oliver Letwin and Dame Caroline Spelman - for daring to seek a single day of Commons business shaped by MPs and not by the executive, so MPs can reveal their Brexit preference.

But surely the accusation of infamy is bizarre.
Here is why.
First, leaving the EU is the most important decision this country has taken in decades, whose ramifications on our prosperity, security and influence in the world will resonate for many more decades.

Second, the prime minister's plan to leave the EU was not just resoundingly defeated by MPs, it was defeated by a margin of historic proportions - and those most responsible for her defeat are the Tory Brexit MPs who (along with some close to the PM) are now accusing the Grieveses, Boleses and Letwins of betraying democracy and the PM, even though Boles, Letwin, Spelman, Morgan et al (though not Grieves) actually backed the PMs Brexit plan.

Third, throughout most of British history, a defeat of such momentous importance for the nation and a government would have been followed in short order probably by a general election and failing that by the resignation of a prime minister.

Neither has happened, partly because of the legacy of the last prime minister David Cameron whose Fixed Term Parliament Act makes it almost impossible for MPs to throw out a failing government and partly because those same outraged Tory Brexiters launched a premature coup before Christmas against the PM - which means that she is now safe in office for another year.

So the normal valves in the British constitution that let pressure out of the system when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the executive and the legislature are not functioning properly.
But the genius of the British constitution is its adaptability.
All the Boleses, Letwins and Greiveses are doing - with the help of the clerks of the Commons - is find another valve.
The point is that right now it is unclear whether the PM has the authority to get any version of Brexit through the Commons.

So is it really so scandalous for Tory and Labour backbenchers to join forces to express their collective will - which could take the form of binding legislation or an indicative motion - that a no-deal Brexit should be taken off the table, given that they take the view that a no-deal Brexit would wreak havoc to this country's prosperity and security?

The PM may beg to differ. But in a democracy, differences on an issue of such magnitude are quite properly debated and resolved by elected representatives, not ruled as improper by a threatened executive.
For the avoidance of doubt, even if the Boleses and Letwins have their day, it is by no means certain that the EU would acquiesce as and when the MPs force the PM to sue for a delay to the moment the UK leaves the EU - especially if that delay is simply so that the UK could have more time agonising about what kind of Brexit it may or may not want, rather than for a definable express purpose (like a referendum or a general election).

There is also a hilarious paradox here, which those in Downing Street who see Boles, Letwin and Grieves as the enemy have seemingly failed to notice.
The Brexiter rebels have made it plain they would rather have a no-deal Brexit than the prime minister's version of Brexit. But as Jacob Rees-Mogg confirms in the Mail on Sunday only today, they would rather have May's Brexit to no Brexit at all.

So the inescapable logic of what Rees-Mogg says is that if Boles, Letwin and Co were to succeed in taking no deal off the table, then Rees-Mogg and his Brexiter allies would feel compelled to back the PM's reworked Brexit - and just maybe her deal would be endorsed by the Commons, at the very last.

For what it's worth, when I speak with the likes of Letwin, Boles and Grieves, one of their constant refrains is whether the PM is capable of understanding who her real friends may actually be."
 
I don't think most people like leaving anymore in the light of vast new evidence so I would think a new referendum would be fair.
Going back to the EU now with cap in hand would be a disaster. I don’t see any new evidence tbh. All this was very predictable. Even to a point the PMs inability to manage the situation effectively.
It’s a great shame that MPs on all sides are more interested in playing party politics and personal grandiosement than acting for the good of the country.
 
MPs on all sides are more interested in playing party politics and personal grandiosement than acting for the good of the country.
Don't forget the huge financial benefits that MPs gain during & after their time in office.if they had thought out this,with our interests in mind they wouldn't have called a referendum that they thought they couldn't loose to sort out a internal row in the Tory party.
Once again some of those who support brexit are wallowing in victimhood , trying to blame the EU for this mess.
 
Back
Top