Cameron and Europe

[londonblue]

I found this quite funny. You are saying that the UK has no legal jurisdiction to apply immigration policy for EEA nationals but other than that the government is free to decide. There is nothing to decide if the EU laws prevail, Barna. It is rather like saying the inmates of Guantanemo are confined to their cells for 24 hours a day but other than that they can go where they like.

the comment is fairly typical for an EU Commissioner. I don't know what it is about them, but they seem to think that the public are a dribbling mass of thick non-entities, incapable of forming their own opinion but rather swallowing whole the "lies of the tabloid press."

have you not stopped to wonder for just a second, Barna, that mass immigration is something that transforms a community and therefore entire lives? Were these people ever consulted on whether they supported it? Of course they were not, instead it has been forced through by a patronising undemocratic elite. You will no doubt argue that the British people had a choice when they signed up to the EU. Maybe so, but I wasn't born then and no one has ever been given a say on EU enlargement in this country.

I say this as someone who is actually in favour of freedom of movement in the EU. I'm rather more conscious though that those that disagree are probably more affected than it by I am and they are entirely right to have an express an opinion without being called names or patronised by the European Commission.

Your point being?

:winking:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Can I just be the first to say that I don't want more immigrants in our country, so I don't care how we're perceived.

I recently moved to Ipswich and the number of Eastern Europeans in the town is breathtaking. They are rude, ignorant and seem unable to acknowledge any appreciation of the fact they have moved from their slum to an affluent country, this is characterized by regular spitting, shouting and general filthy behaviour. Why do I want scum like that in my town, or country for that reason? It haunts me that in 20 years time, my daughter could be "hit on" by the offspring of some of these disgusting undesirables.

Welcome to multiculteral Britain.

Your remarks are crude, crass and offensive to all those hard-working immigrants who contribute so much to British society.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Quote from Barna:

On Newsnight last night, the Bulgarian Ambasador gave a figure of 10,000 Bulgarian immigrants in each of the next five years.Rather than a "guessestimate", these figures are based on extrapolations of current trends.
The Government has official figures but refuses to release them.Migration Watch is hardly an unbiased observer.

But on 1st January 2014 current trends change completely. There are no more restrictions on free movement and witholding or denying benefits for three months and removing them entirely after six is, we are told by the unelected European Commissioners, potentially illegal even though Holland has done it for years, France are considering bringing in their own rulings and Germanys Angela Merkel has had to agree to bring restrictions as part of the deal with her coalition partners.

Can I assume that the Bulgarian Ambassador failed to mention that in Bulgaria, if you can't find a job after six months you are placed into one regardless of what it might be and your benefits are stopped. Sounds like another reason to get out of dodge and try your luck elsewhere.

As for Migration Watch, biased they may be but their figures are usually pretty much spot on.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Quote from Barna:

On Newsnight last night, the Bulgarian Ambasador gave a figure of 10,000 Bulgarian immigrants in each of the next five years.Rather than a "guessestimate", these figures are based on extrapolations of current trends.
The Government has official figures but refuses to release them.Migration Watch is hardly an unbiased observer.

But on 1st January 2014 current trends change completely. There are no more restrictions on free movement

You're missing the point that Bulgarians (and Romanians) have been able to work in the UK for the last five years, if they are granted work permits ( issued on a contractual basis) or are self-employed.

Very few (if any) have been denied the right to work in the UK.The extrapolations are based on these figures over the last five years.

Time for the scaremongering to stop methinks.There'll be very little change (if any) to UK immigration figures from mass immigration from Bulgaria and Romania in 2014.

 

[Benfleet A1]

You're missing the point that Bulgarians (and Romanians) have been able to work in the UK for the last five years, if they are granted work permits ( issued on a contractual basis) or are self-employed.

Very few (if any) have been denied the right to work in the UK.The extrapolations are based on these figures over the last five years.

Time for the scaremongering to stop methinks.There'll be very little change (if any) to UK immigration figures from mass immigration from Bulgaria and Romania in 2014.

And you are obviously missing the blindingly obvious point that after 1st January they wont need a work permit.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

And you are obviously missing the blindingly obvious point that after 1st January they wont need a work permit.

Any Bulgarians (or Romanians) who wanted to do so, have been able to work in the UK relatively easily over the last five years,already.

What on earth makes you think that this situation will change so dramatically from January?

The facts are that historically, people (like me), who choose to work in other EU countries,amount to considerably less than 5% of any one EU member country's population.(The average figure is 2.5%).

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-11072012-AP/EN/3-11072012-AP-EN.PDF


"In 2010, of all EU countries, the UK was hosting the fourth largest number of EU migrants (about 2.2 million).[/B] The EU members with a bigger stock of EU migrants are Germany (3.76m), Spain (2.6m) and France (2.47m).

On the other hand, the UK is also the fifth biggest sender of migrants to other EU countries, with about 1.4 million British people living in other EU countries in 2010. The four biggest senders of migrants to other EU countries are Romania (2.2m), Italy (2m), Poland (1.9m) and Germany (1.7m)

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.u...s-freedom-movement-eu-affect-migration-and-uk

Instead of this ridiculous non-debate about mass immigration by Bugarians and Romanians you would do better to focus on why fewer foreign students are coming to study in Britain.

"Overseas student numbers have fallen from a peak of 246,000 in the year to September 2011 to the latest figure of 176,000 in the year to this June."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/net-migration-uk-25000-to-182000

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migra...tics-quarterly-report/november-2013/msqr.html

 

[superblue24]

Welcome to multiculteral Britain.

Your remarks are crude, crass and offensive to all those hard-working immigrants who contribute so much to British society.

I'm not entitled to an opinion as a native Briton based on my experience of these folk? One of them barges past my
then-pregnant wife without so much as apology....It's OK because he's an immigrant? You have no idea.

They contribute "so much", yet we have British people looking for work.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'm not entitled to an opinion as a native Briton based on my experience of these folk? One of them barges past my
then-pregnant wife without so much as apology....It's OK because he's an immigrant? You have no idea.

Nobody's suggesting you're not entitled to an opinion.Of course you are.

However,you'd be wise not to generalise too much from one unfortunate incident.

They contribute "so much", yet we have British people looking for work.

There are also young EU nationals looking for work in Southern Europe.They're well educated,skilled and willing to travel.

"The main increase in immigration has come from migrants from the battered southern European eurozone economies of Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/net-migration-uk-25000-to-182000

We live in a global economy you know.

 

[South Bank Hank]

Welcome to multiculteral Britain.

Your remarks are crude, crass and offensive to all those hard-working immigrants who contribute so much to British society.

Multi-what now?

Agreed on the immigrants and the net contribution they make... but let's not pretend for one moment that you don't go in for crass, crude and offensive stereotyping - you give us that on here on an almost daily basis.

As for the topic, I'm all for freedom of labour movement as this country needs it. But I'm also massively supportive of what Cameron has pinpointed as the difference between freedom to work and freedom to claim benefits. A difficult challenge to make it work, but almost impossible to argue sensibly against as a principle. I'm sure the Guardian will have a pop though, as... well, it's the Tories isn't it, and they're all absolute rotters?

Really enjoyed the Parliamentary debate yesterday and actually gained some respect for BOTH party leaders - a timely reminder of how the party leaders are chronically pigeon-holed by the opposing 'sides' of the Press. Much as Miliband showed willing though, Cameron was so dominant against him, it was like listening to commentary of the Aussie's batsmen smashing Swann round the park! Highly likely any pre-election live debates will swing the vote against Labour this time around just as they did last time.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Multi-what now?

Sorry,multicultural. (What linguists would call L2 interference).

Agreed on the immigrants and the net contribution they make... but let's not pretend for one moment that you don't go in for crass, crude and offensive stereotyping - you give us that on here on an almost daily basis.

Possibly,but at least I don't tacitly condone, blatantly xenophobic posts,which you clearly do.

As for the topic, I'm all for freedom of labour movement as this country needs it. But I'm also massively supportive of what Cameron has pinpointed as the difference between freedom to work and freedom to claim benefits. A difficult challenge to make it work, but almost impossible to argue sensibly against as a principle.

The current "race to the bottom" on immigration by all three major parties in British politics is an unedifying spectacle.The Tories are being pushed hard by UKIP on their right.The so-called centre Left parties (Labour and the Lib-Dems) should have no such excuse.

Really enjoyed the Parliamentary debate yesterday and actually gained some respect for BOTH party leaders - a timely reminder of how the party leaders are chronically pigeon-holed by the opposing 'sides' of the Press. Much as Miliband showed willing though, Cameron was so dominant against him, it was like listening to commentary of the Aussie's batsmen smashing Swann round the park! Highly likely any pre-election live debates will swing the vote against Labour this time around just as they did last time.

Like you, I saw PMQ's on Wednesday.Unlike you,I don't have such a high opinion of Cameron.Granted he has charm and an easy manner at the despatch box.
However ,he stands for nothing in British poltics,as his abandoning of the "Great Society" and recent "green crap" comments prove.

Ed.Miliband is a lot tougher than he looks.You only have to think back to how he won the Labour party leadership to realise that.The campaign by the right wing Tory press to undermine him (as they did with Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock) will come unstuck in 2015.

Let's face it, at heart (like so many on here), you're just a Tory-boy.Nothing wrong with that.But why not have the courage to admit it,rather than hiding behind a transparent mask of impartiality?

 

[Benfleet A1]

Ed.Miliband is a lot tougher than he looks.You only have to think back to how he won the Labour party leadership to realise that.The campaign by the right wing Tory press to undermine him (as they did with Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock) will come unstuck in 2015.

He promised the unions a pot of gold that he can't deliver. As for Foot and Kinnock perhaps the electors of this country didn't fancy being led by man who wore a scruffy old anorak to the cenetaph or a windbag with no polices. The Startled Panda is being found out now for what he is so much so that I doubt we will have to wait for 2015.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

He promised the unions a pot of gold that he can't deliver. As for Foot and Kinnock perhaps the electors of this country didn't fancy being led by man who wore a scruffy old anorak to the cenetaph or a windbag with no polices. The Startled Panda is being found out now for what he is so much so that I doubt we will have to wait for 2015.

We will, I'm afraid.And don't forget our UKIP bet,either.:winking:

 

[South Bank Hank]

Possibly,but at least I don't tacitly condone, blatantly xenophobic posts,which you clearly do.

Indeed, moderating the site is a fine line and if often works best when it moderates itself, especially when an irrational fear of foreign people is neither against the law or needing censorship per se. Let's face it, you're usually amongst the first to bleat about censorship or freedom of speech when it suits you. As always though Barna, if a post crosses the line, you are perfectly free to lodge a complaint for the team to review.

Let's face it, at heart (like so many on here), you're just a Tory-boy.Nothing wrong with that.But why not have the courage to admit it,rather than hiding behind a transparent mask of impartiality?

Courage to admit what I'm thinking isn't usually something I've been challenged about, that's for sure.
* :net: nibble nibble *

I've never claimed impartiality, that's ridiculous. But it's an insufferable FOOL who takes the view that one party has all the right answers while the others have got it completely wrong. Whatever you think, there ARE pros and cons of both systems of government and some good politicians on both sides.

What I'm attracted to is a free market economy that encourages hard work and enterprise, operating under small government but with an appropriate level of corrective state intervention where necessary.

What I'm passionately opposed to is narrow or closed-mindedness.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Indeed, moderating the site is a fine line and if often works best when it moderates itself, especially when an irrational fear of foreign people is neither against the law or needing censorship per se. Let's face it, you're usually amongst the first to bleat about censorship or freedom of speech when it suits you. As always though Barna, if a post crosses the line, you are perfectly free to lodge a complaint for the team to review.

I did lodge a complaint yesterday.

. But it's an insufferable FOOL who takes the view that one party has all the right answers while the others have got it completely wrong. Whatever you think, there ARE pros and cons of both systems of government and some good politicians on both sides.
What I'm passionately opposed to is narrow or closed-mindedness.

I've said on many occasions that I'm not an apologist for the Labour party.And I'm not.My politics is far to the left of Labour's.

As to your point about good policiticians on both sides, I agree.I've got a lot of time for quite a few Lib-Dems. and people like Ken Clarke in the Tories

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Can I just be the first to say that I don't want more immigrants in our country, so I don't care how we're perceived.

I recently moved to Ipswich and the number of Eastern Europeans in the town is breathtaking. They are rude, ignorant and seem unable to acknowledge any appreciation of the fact they have moved from their slum to an affluent country, this is characterized by regular spitting, shouting and general filthy behaviour. Why do I want scum like that in my town, or country for that reason? It haunts me that in 20 years time, my daughter could be "hit on" by the offspring of some of these disgusting undesirables.

Sounds like they are fitting in too well.

 

[Berrichonne shrimper]

Indeed, moderating the site is a fine line and if often works best when it moderates itself, especially when an irrational fear of foreign people is neither against the law or needing censorship per se. Let's face it, you're usually amongst the first to bleat about censorship or freedom of speech when it suits you. As always though Barna, if a post crosses the line, you are perfectly free to lodge a complaint for the team to review.



Courage to admit what I'm thinking isn't usually something I've been challenged about, that's for sure.
* :net: nibble nibble *

I've never claimed impartiality, that's ridiculous. But it's an insufferable FOOL who takes the view that one party has all the right answers while the others have got it completely wrong. Whatever you think, there ARE pros and cons of both systems of government and some good politicians on both sides.

What I'm attracted to is a free market economy that encourages hard work and enterprise, operating under small government but with an appropriate level of corrective state intervention where necessary.

What I'm passionately opposed to is narrow or closed-mindedness.

And yet again the bigot is owned.

 

[C C Csiders]

I thought this thread was going to be about our Prime Minister's latest attempt at getting down with the youth by revealing his love for fancy-pants, tousled-haired Scandinavian 80's soft-metal. But, alas, no.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

[video=youtube_share;DLvIFRNbqOs]http://youtu.be/DLvIFRNbqOs[/video]

And yet again the bigot is owned.

I'm not a bigot, Mr Honoury President,though I grant you I don't like Tories.

Dunno why, but increasingly, you're reminding me more and more of the above character.:winking:

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

I'm not a bigot, Mr Honoury President,though I grant you I don't like Tories.

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

I'm aware of the dictionary definition,thanks.

I don't refuse to accept the existence of Tories.Nor do I hate them.I just dislike them strongly.

Not the same thing at all.Nothing unfair about it.After all,they're the self-confessed "nasty party."

(Last I heard, the Tories aren't a racial or religous group,either.Though I'm aware that the Church of England has been described as "the Tory party at prayer." ).:winking: