weasel
Reneging on Treaties
double reverse ferret
So the price of the coalition is a liberal democrat government?
Weak, weak, and weak.
No balls, no leadership, no political risks, nada = conservative vote wasted.
It's so easy to ignore reality with a throw-away insult, isn't it?
AFAICR, some years ago I was the first major poster here to mention in a major thread that population levels are a problem.
The difference is that I don't distinguish between immigration from different sources - I don't care whether someone wants to come here from the EU, or Australia, Canada, US, etc. AFAIAC the country is full and the sign says "No Vacancies" to all, no matter how educated, distinguished, skilled, or talented, and regardless of race, creed, or religion.
Boat people are not from within Europe, so there is every reason to repatriate them at the first opportunity.
Much illegal immigration into this country happens with the connivance of business, because it can exploit such people more easily than the native born population, as has been seen from various news stories such as the drownings in Morecambe Bay. This in turn leads to the involvement of criminal gangs, perhaps even organised crime, with gang leaders skimming wages, etc. Employers in the country should be prepared to pay legal minimum wages to native residents, with fines too awful to comtemplate if found conniving in illegal activity.
If migrant workers here >
Since nobody had a majority, the alternative would have been another election. Or a minority government.
TBH, given the situation a couple of years ago, I went into the election thinking a blue/yellow coalition would have been the best outcome. Labour deserved to lose, and lose heavily. They'd left an absolute poisoned chalice for whoever replaced them, that really did need both the other parties to pull together rather than fight over it.
I don't think the opprobrium that's been heaped on Clegg over it all has been remotely fair. They're very much the minority partner. The main character deserving of opprobrium has been Cable, who's proven petulant.
To all _legal_ employees, regardless of origin.
The subtle problem with that is that the fundamental concept of the EU is freedom of movement for both goods and people. And, yes, it was the exact same situation back in 1975's EEC. You cannot have a "common market", a single economic community, WITHOUT that. It makes a mockery of the whole concept.
It's so easy to break promises with a throwaway excuse, isnt it?
AFAIAA, there is no evidence that politicians are stupider than the rest of the country - greedier, very possibly; more corrupt, very possibly; more vain, very possibly; short term thinkers, very possibly; but stupider, no - for example compare the level of debate in both Houses with that here; unfortunately, we come out worse.
And still you seem oblivious to the fact that your post >
We can do so now.
We'd have other equivalent regulations.
Harry, just for once, disengage bigotry, engage brain. There is no evidence at all for this pathetic assertion. For example in 2007, the only "basket case ex commie country" to receive more EU funding than the UK was Poland; each of the rest received less than half of what we did:
Answered elsewhere. If businesses didn't employ them they wouldn't come, and that applies to legal as well as illegal immigrants. The problem is the businesses who employ them.
I told you: at coalition time all promises made before the election become, by definition, dull and void, simply because you are not going to be in a position, necessarily, to deliver on them. In 2010, if all three parties had said that their red lines for joining a coalition were the implementation *in full* of their *own* manifesto, that would have made forming *any* coalition impossible. What you end up with is an agreement that contains some of their promises, and some of yours. Each side has to hold its nose and agree to support the other party's set of policies that are in the agreement. [1]
Perhaps you'd like to indicate what you think the party leaders should have done in 2010 *instead* of forming a coalition.
[1] Except of course the Libs reneged on boundary changes and reducing the number of MPs (so much for "fairness", eh). I think Cameron should have called their bluff on that one.
Not entirely. I visited a local apple farm about a month ago.The bloke running it said that all their pickers are eastern European. He has to pay them the same as anyone local. For the foreigners, minimum wage is good pay. For the Brits, it's not. That is the first point. Second, it's bloody hard work. He had a local couple who were determined to pick at the same rate the foreigners could do. After the first day they were exhausted.
Now, 50 years ago all that would most certainly have been picked by locals. But unless you do it on a regular basis, then you're not gonna be fit enough to be able to stick at it. And so people can't and don't.
But what we should have (but don't) is the ability to restrict benefits for foreigners to that which a Brit would get in the same situation in the foreigner's country of origin.
Talk about being economical with the truth. JJ conveniently ignores that part of the BBC report which shows the way in which the EU is funded.
'Spending' will take you to the report cited by JJ.
'Payments' > 'Net contribution' (or net by population) shows that for once Harry has a point although he ignores the fact that the biggest pain in the wallet are not the East Europeans but Greece and Portugal and also the biggest free loaders of all who are the Irish who have a gdp per capita higher than that of the UK.
Quite right. But we need to get our own idle gits off their arses first.
The socialists like immigration because they think they are importing voters. The Tories like immigration because it's cheap labour.
And f**k our own people.
Goods yes, people no.
And it became stupid when they let the basket cases in. Obvious they were going to flock to the nicer places bringing all their crap/issues with them.
Obvious too that criminals would move to new territories with fresh pickings where they were unknown.
Well if you'd stop your stupid top posting there'd be a lot less confusion.
If politicians eren't stupid we wouldn't be whee we are with electricty, the economy , society, immigration etc etc.
He will get no concessions. He will try to wriggle out of a referendum. If there is one, it will be the wrong question.
Wrong. It was explicitly within the 1957 Treaty of Rome.
That's exactly what happens.
It's a very simple concept.
Somebody in gets treated exactly the same, whether they're a "local" or originally from another EU country.
So, yes, a Brit in DOES get treated exactly the same as a local.
Who that?
If you mean Cameron and negotiating improvements to the EU, then I suspect you're probably right. But it's far better to be in a position where you can say you tried, and all you got in return was intransigence. If nothing else, it would boost the Out vote. It would also convince thee rest of the EU that we mean it, and that perhaps they didn't want us anyway.
His feet will be held to the fire, don't you worry.
That's the exact opposite of what Roger just said.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.