"Absolutely no one wants to see Michael Heseltine and Peter Mandelson dangled naked from The Shard, and voiding their bowels, just for the entertainment of enormous, happy crowds; nobody wishes to see Jacques Delors lynched with such ferocity that he starts to bite the nose off Jose Barroso. That would be ridiculous, and I am appalled that anyone is suggesting it."
Tim Ross @TimRossDT Lib Dem MPs expected to be told they can stay away from Commons for Tory #EU referendum Bill "stunt" on July 5. Just like Labour.
So if both Lab and Lib don't up turn doesn't that mean there is a possibility that the bill will be carried? Does this mean it actually becomes law or would it have to be approved by the Lords?
No, this is just one of many stages, and it's a Private Member's Bill, for which time is in short supply. It doesn't have any chance of passing unless the Government adopts it (which they have no intention of doing, which is why it's a stunt, in the sense that it's designed to attract attention and debate rather than expected to pass).
Farage should stand up, be honest with the British people and tell them, 4p on income tax if you don't want a Spaniard or a Pole next door to you. And of course we'll need to build a lot more care homes and hospitals once the retirees can't move around Europe, add that on too. Bedroom tax apply to retirees forced to stay here in houses larger than they need will it? Big outgoings just because Nige wants to stop young Poles and Spaniards coming here.
So hopefully UKIP will be honest. 5p on income tax sounds a little low,but a start down the road to honesty.
Spare room subsidy doesnt apply to OAPs, you told me that!
& people that could afford to retire to Spain would own their own houses anyway!
Farage should stand up, be honest with the British people and tell them, 4p on income tax if you don't want a Spaniard or a Pole next door to you. And of course we'll need to build a lot more care homes and hospitals once the retirees can't move around Europe, add that on too. Bedroom tax apply to retirees forced to stay here in houses larger than they need will it? Big outgoings just because Nige wants to stop young Poles and Spaniards coming here.
So hopefully UKIP will be honest. 5p on income tax sounds a little low,but a start down the road to honesty.
Dear oh dear, I think you were better when they let you call people names on here!
Now you are inventing policies for other parties so you can argue against them!!!
Get yourself a hobby! Take up golf!
It is sad that Tim seems to be displaying all the signs of impending senility. It seems he is becoming more and more divorced from the real world every day.
Why do you want to stop British unskilled workers or retirees moving to other countries in the EU?
I don't, though there perhaps might be a quota for unskilled workers.
Indeed, if Spain said 'right, no more UK pensioners', that might concentrate the minds of a few UKIP voters who consider it their inalienable right to retire there, whilst at the same time blocking some EU citizens from coming here.
I have no problems with other EU countries controlling their borders in a similar manner.
If they want to keep out criminal Brits, I cannot see how we could object!
British retirees receive British pensions in the Costas, and tend to return to the UK when they get frail. As I pointed out most health care and social care costs are in the final couple of years of life, so the costs are still mostly borne by the UK taxpayer.
If British pensioners were means tested to ensure that they had the wherewithal to support themselves, and insurance to cover emergencies, before they could have permanent residence, it would seem very reasonable to me.
As the OECD report shows, because of the age profile of those moving here and those leaving we are net beneficiaries financially from immigration.
To what end do you want to change that? Why would you want British pensioners means tested by foreign governments, what is it about all this which is so terrible that you are determined to cost the country so much money and limit the freedom to retire to the EU,or go and work there?
I am not opposed to immigration. If I were I would hardly work in the most multi ethnic job in the very multi cultural city of Leicester!
What I do want is for us to be selective on who we let in. Just last week I hired our first Romanian. She is well qualified, has a track record of hard work and speaks excellent English. She comes in under existing rules.
What I do not want is the illiterate non-english speaking graduates of Bucharest's jails. Similarly if Spain wants to turn away a Briton with no means of financial support in retirement, or a long criminal record, then who can blame them?
Numbers are one issue, but quality of migrant is the other issue. Labour made a step in the right direction with the points system, but it needs to be refined further.
Or do you really think that all migrants, no matter how illiterate, how backward in their social attitudes or how incapable of work should be allowed in? Just because some migrants contribute economically and socially to the country does not mean that all will do so.
Numbers are one issue, but quality of migrant is the other issue. Labour made a step in the right direction with the points system, but it needs to be refined further.
Or do you really think that all migrants, no matter how illiterate, how backward in their social attitudes or how incapable of work should be allowed in? Just because some migrants contribute economically and socially to the country does not mean that all will do so.
To many people, a sense of belonging and being part of a community are more important than money
And to me, an individual has the right to live wherever he can afford to live.
However; I accept this view may not be universally popular. I am happy to accept a compromise, such as was the case in the US until the 1920s, where anyone - so long as they were not sick or a criminal - was allowed in. I would also combine this with the restriction that no-one would be eligible for benefits of any kind until they had paid five years of National Insurance contributions. Socrates is worried this would cause shanty towns to be created on the edge of cities, so I would suggest we would need proper enforcement of property rights. (It's worth noting that there were no shanty towns in the US at the turn of the century, although people did often live ten-to-a-room when they were getting themselves established.)
Numbers are one issue, but quality of migrant is the other issue. Labour made a step in the right direction with the points system, but it needs to be refined further.
Or do you really think that all migrants, no matter how illiterate, how backward in their social attitudes or how incapable of work should be allowed in? Just because some migrants contribute economically and socially to the country does not mean that all will do so.
This is the position of a selective school, which is happy to take the brightest kids from a depressed area so long as it can keep the others out. But we don't operate the system within Britain - you are free to move from Leicester to Penzance or Inverness, and so is the most anti-social criminal in Leicester. It's felt to be excessive state control to determine where you can live.
The EU was set up on the basis that the same should operate across the Continent. This has enabled successive generations of British young people (some, no doubt, of limited skills, low moral character and deplorable habits) to travel around, get temporary jobs, and generally widen their horizons. As taffys put it, one has to take the rough with the smooth. The same applies to Poles and, now, to Bulgarians and Romanians. Because Romania seems a lot more foreign than Penzance or Leicester, many people find this more alarming, but it's a feature of the EU, not a bug.
I understand your wish to be selective (I'd quite like to choose who lives near me too - no BNP supporters or drunks, say), but it's incompatible with the freedom of movement in Europe, which means that if it is really important to you, you really do need to vote UKIP and hope they get out of the EEA too. No conceivable renegotiation is going to change it: it's regarded across Europe as just as fundamental as the Common Market (and I think young Brits would be pretty horrified if it stopped).
Numbers are one issue, but quality of migrant is the other issue. Labour made a step in the right direction with the points system, but it needs to be refined further.
Or do you really think that all migrants, no matter how illiterate, how backward in their social attitudes or how incapable of work should be allowed in? Just because some migrants contribute economically and socially to the country does not mean that all will do so.
This is the position of a selective school, which is happy to take the brightest kids from a depressed area so long as it can keep the others out. But we don't operate the system within Britain - you are free to move from Leicester to Penzance or Inverness, and so is the most anti-social criminal in Leicester. It's felt to be excessive state control to determine where you can live.
The EU was set up on the basis that the same should operate across the Continent. This has enabled successive generations of British young people (some, no doubt, of limited skills, low moral character and deplorable habits) to travel around, get temporary jobs, and generally widen their horizons. As taffys put it, one has to take the rough with the smooth. The same applies to Poles and, now, to Bulgarians and Romanians. Because Romania seems a lot more foreign than Penzance or Leicester, many people find this more alarming, but it's a feature of the EU, not a bug.
I understand your wish to be selective (I'd quite like to choose who lives near me too - no BNP supporters or drunks, say), but it's incompatible with the freedom of movement in Europe, which means that if it is really important to you, you really do need to vote UKIP and hope they get out of the EEA too. No conceivable renegotiation is going to change it: it's regarded across Europe as just as fundamental as the Common Market (and I think young Brits would be pretty horrified if it stopped).
All very interesting. Your old home and model democracy , Switzerland , imposes the most severe restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration. You've often called for the British to be more like the Swiss , I agree.
Numbers are one issue, but quality of migrant is the other issue. Labour made a step in the right direction with the points system, but it needs to be refined further.
Or do you really think that all migrants, no matter how illiterate, how backward in their social attitudes or how incapable of work should be allowed in? Just because some migrants contribute economically and socially to the country does not mean that all will do so.
This is the position of a selective school, which is happy to take the brightest kids from a depressed area so long as it can keep the others out. But we don't operate the system within Britain - you are free to move from Leicester to Penzance or Inverness, and so is the most anti-social criminal in Leicester. It's felt to be excessive state control to determine where you can live.
The EU was set up on the basis that the same should operate across the Continent. This has enabled successive generations of British young people (some, no doubt, of limited skills, low moral character and deplorable habits) to travel around, get temporary jobs, and generally widen their horizons. As taffys put it, one has to take the rough with the smooth. The same applies to Poles and, now, to Bulgarians and Romanians. Because Romania seems a lot more foreign than Penzance or Leicester, many people find this more alarming, but it's a feature of the EU, not a bug.
I understand your wish to be selective (I'd quite like to choose who lives near me too - no BNP supporters or drunks, say), but it's incompatible with the freedom of movement in Europe, which means that if it is really important to you, you really do need to vote UKIP and hope they get out of the EEA too. No conceivable renegotiation is going to change it: it's regarded across Europe as just as fundamental as the Common Market (and I think young Brits would be pretty horrified if it stopped).
Nick,
As i have stated before, I am not a UKIPer. The EEC did exist before free movement of people across national boundaries was established. It is not incompatible.
I think that rcs1000 is right, in that a highly mobile world that free movement of people is not compatible with a non contributory welfare state. We have to choose, and personally I want to keep a welfare state. The free movement of people is also (along with the CAP) the reason that applicant countries such as Turkey, Ukraine and Morocco are unlikely to be allowed in.
I accept free movement within the EU is on the cards, but we do have a selective system or non EU migrants. Rightly so, and so do most developed countries. The days when my grandparents could migrate to England without needing a passport, let alone a visa, are long gone.
On-topic, it occurs to me that if Cameron remains Conservative leader until May 2015, he'll have had nearly a decade in the job outlasting the likes of John Major and equivalent to the leadership tenure of Edward Heath.
Heath is much-maligned these days but in June 1970 he led the Conservatives to a clear GE victory achieving a vote share of 46% which neither Thatcher nor Blair achieved and looks well out of reach at present.
I note Robert's comments about immigration and housing. I live in East Ham so I see immigration up close and personal and the houses are certainly pretty busy (not sure about ten to a room though). The scourge of the back-yard shed dwelling is a big issue but the private rental sector has never been more buoyant.
In Savills auction catalogue for next Monday, there are half a dozen houses in East Ham, Barking and Plaistow. All "require internal refurbishment" but all will I suspect be sold, done up and rented out and it will be fascinating to see how far above the guide price prospective landlords are willing to go.
I enjoyed the intelligent conversation with a whole bunch of people: Sean Fear, Richard Nabavi, Edmund in Tokyo, Morris Dancer, Southam Observer, The Screaming Eagles, isam, Nick Palmer, stodge, rcs1000, MrsB, Plato, foxinsox, Sunil and all those I've missed. Unfortunately, there's a small minority on here that dominate so many threads and are just rude and unpleasant to others. While there's a certain amount of internet trolling you put up with, at the point where some posters accuse others of salivating over the sexual abuse of children, I think a line should be drawn. While Mike has the right to regulate the site as he wishes, each of us has the right to go elsewhere if we think it's not being done in an acceptable manner. I know I'm not the first to leave because of the abuse of others, so I would encourage the moderators to review their systems - even some openness or explanation over decisions would help.
If anyone wants to be in touch, I'm available at socraticdiscourse@hotmail.com though I might not always check it promptly. I think I only have one outstanding bet, with rcs, but if I've forgotten any, please email. I might get dragged back for certain big events (like the Scottish referendum), or, more likely, if certain other posters get banned or move on. I'd appreciate it if someone lets me know if the latter happens. All the best to the good guys on here, and best of luck with the site in future, Mike. I enjoyed it for most of the time.
I enjoyed the intelligent conversation with a whole bunch of people: Sean Fear, Richard Nabavi, Edmund in Tokyo, Morris Dancer, Southam Observer, The Screaming Eagles, isam, Nick Palmer, stodge, rcs1000, MrsB, Plato, foxinsox, Sunil and all those I've missed. Unfortunately, there's a small minority on here that dominate so many threads and are just rude and unpleasant to others. While there's a certain amount of internet trolling you put up with, at the point where some posters accuse others of salivating over the sexual abuse of children, I think a line should be drawn. While Mike has the right to regulate the site as he wishes, each of us has the right to go elsewhere if we think it's not being done in an acceptable manner. I know I'm not the first to leave because of the abuse of others, so I would encourage the moderators to review their systems - even some openness or explanation over decisions would help.
If anyone wants to be in touch, I'm available at socraticdiscourse@hotmail.com though I might not always check it promptly. I think I only have one outstanding bet, with rcs, but if I've forgotten any, please email. I might get dragged back for certain big events (like the Scottish referendum), or, more likely, if certain other posters get banned or move on. I'd appreciate it if someone lets me know if the latter happens. All the best to the good guys on here, and best of luck with the site in future, Mike. I enjoyed it for most of the time.
Socrates don't be silly,you bring your take of the world to this site and causes argument/Questions/debate,that's good,the site will be poorer for you leaving.
Remember I got called a bnp supporter/member by a certain poster on here,do what I do Socrates,keep a little black book ;-)
Comments
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100221695/wanted-a-new-circle-of-dantes-hell-for-the-fools-who-crippled-half-of-europe-with-their-idiot-currency/
& people that could afford to retire to Spain would own their own houses anyway!
What I do want is for us to be selective on who we let in. Just last week I hired our first Romanian. She is well qualified, has a track record of hard work and speaks excellent English. She comes in under existing rules.
What I do not want is the illiterate non-english speaking graduates of Bucharest's jails. Similarly if Spain wants to turn away a Briton with no means of financial support in retirement, or a long criminal record, then who can blame them?
Numbers are one issue, but quality of migrant is the other issue. Labour made a step in the right direction with the points system, but it needs to be refined further.
Or do you really think that all migrants, no matter how illiterate, how backward in their social attitudes or how incapable of work should be allowed in? Just because some migrants contribute economically and socially to the country does not mean that all will do so.
If you're curious, my patch, Ilford North is 44% WB.
However; I accept this view may not be universally popular. I am happy to accept a compromise, such as was the case in the US until the 1920s, where anyone - so long as they were not sick or a criminal - was allowed in. I would also combine this with the restriction that no-one would be eligible for benefits of any kind until they had paid five years of National Insurance contributions. Socrates is worried this would cause shanty towns to be created on the edge of cities, so I would suggest we would need proper enforcement of property rights. (It's worth noting that there were no shanty towns in the US at the turn of the century, although people did often live ten-to-a-room when they were getting themselves established.)
The EU was set up on the basis that the same should operate across the Continent. This has enabled successive generations of British young people (some, no doubt, of limited skills, low moral character and deplorable habits) to travel around, get temporary jobs, and generally widen their horizons. As taffys put it, one has to take the rough with the smooth. The same applies to Poles and, now, to Bulgarians and Romanians. Because Romania seems a lot more foreign than Penzance or Leicester, many people find this more alarming, but it's a feature of the EU, not a bug.
I understand your wish to be selective (I'd quite like to choose who lives near me too - no BNP supporters or drunks, say), but it's incompatible with the freedom of movement in Europe, which means that if it is really important to you, you really do need to vote UKIP and hope they get out of the EEA too. No conceivable renegotiation is going to change it: it's regarded across Europe as just as fundamental as the Common Market (and I think young Brits would be pretty horrified if it stopped).
Surely there are other parties/supporters of other parties too that support independence?
(By the way, I think the line up on QT is ludicrous - clearly too few on the Yes side, anyone saying otherwise isn't a democrat)
As i have stated before, I am not a UKIPer. The EEC did exist before free movement of people across national boundaries was established. It is not incompatible.
I think that rcs1000 is right, in that a highly mobile world that free movement of people is not compatible with a non contributory welfare state. We have to choose, and personally I want to keep a welfare state. The free movement of people is also (along with the CAP) the reason that applicant countries such as Turkey, Ukraine and Morocco are unlikely to be allowed in.
I accept free movement within the EU is on the cards, but we do have a selective system or non EU migrants. Rightly so, and so do most developed countries. The days when my grandparents could migrate to England without needing a passport, let alone a visa, are long gone.
On-topic, it occurs to me that if Cameron remains Conservative leader until May 2015, he'll have had nearly a decade in the job outlasting the likes of John Major and equivalent to the leadership tenure of Edward Heath.
Heath is much-maligned these days but in June 1970 he led the Conservatives to a clear GE victory achieving a vote share of 46% which neither Thatcher nor Blair achieved and looks well out of reach at present.
I note Robert's comments about immigration and housing. I live in East Ham so I see immigration up close and personal and the houses are certainly pretty busy (not sure about ten to a room though). The scourge of the back-yard shed dwelling is a big issue but the private rental sector has never been more buoyant.
In Savills auction catalogue for next Monday, there are half a dozen houses in East Ham, Barking and Plaistow. All "require internal refurbishment" but all will I suspect be sold, done up and rented out and it will be fascinating to see how far above the guide price prospective landlords are willing to go.
I enjoyed the intelligent conversation with a whole bunch of people: Sean Fear, Richard Nabavi, Edmund in Tokyo, Morris Dancer, Southam Observer, The Screaming Eagles, isam, Nick Palmer, stodge, rcs1000, MrsB, Plato, foxinsox, Sunil and all those I've missed. Unfortunately, there's a small minority on here that dominate so many threads and are just rude and unpleasant to others. While there's a certain amount of internet trolling you put up with, at the point where some posters accuse others of salivating over the sexual abuse of children, I think a line should be drawn. While Mike has the right to regulate the site as he wishes, each of us has the right to go elsewhere if we think it's not being done in an acceptable manner. I know I'm not the first to leave because of the abuse of others, so I would encourage the moderators to review their systems - even some openness or explanation over decisions would help.
If anyone wants to be in touch, I'm available at socraticdiscourse@hotmail.com though I might not always check it promptly. I think I only have one outstanding bet, with rcs, but if I've forgotten any, please email. I might get dragged back for certain big events (like the Scottish referendum), or, more likely, if certain other posters get banned or move on. I'd appreciate it if someone lets me know if the latter happens. All the best to the good guys on here, and best of luck with the site in future, Mike. I enjoyed it for most of the time.
Remember I got called a bnp supporter/member by a certain poster on here,do what I do Socrates,keep a little black book ;-)