"4 million is not even one in six of the 30 million you need to appeal to in order to win the vote."
But if 30,000,000 is needed to win, you are assuming the electorate who vote is close to 60,000,000. I now we've had a lot of immigration lately but our population isn't that high.
I suspect IN is still favourite but Europe are helping the OUT vote at the moment.
I'd like to say I'm surprised, but i'm not. I am very disappointed.
"We need a say over the rules. That is what we get sitting round that table.”
The problem is right now we don't really get a say. France and Germany agree, and push through a bloc vote. Hopefully Cameron is saying this because he is negotiating a double QMV or red card system or something similar.
We probably are better at moment. But it is the future we are talking about and how we react to ever closer union of the eurozone.
UKIP got 13% of the votes and won 1 seat. SNP won 5% of the votes and 56 MPs. LDs got 8% and 8 MPs.
FPTP is neither representative nor democratic !
Yet it remains the prevailing and supported electoral model in one of the bastions of Western liberal democracy.
Doesn't suit everybody, but it suits Britain just fine. And it offers:
- stability of government and constitution - direct constituency link between individual and the legislature - accountability (government and representatives)
All of which are most definitely something, and cherished by the majority of the people.
The UK is neither a bastion nor a good example of a democracy. It has only one of its two chambers subject to the popular vote and the head of state is unelected and appointed on a hereditary basis.
You are fooling only yourself by claiming anyone would look at the UK and think "hey, great example of democracy". It is almost certainly the worst example in all Western liberal democracies - so bad that it probably shouldn't be included in such a grouping.
So I guess no-one would be traversing continents in an effort to reach our bastion of Western liberal freedom, then.
Oh, wait....
Surprisingly - there is a good case for NOT having a second elected chamber. If it is controlled by the same Government it is redundant - and if it isn't then we get gridlock with no legislation able to be passed. The HoL (well a lot of them) are pretty much apolitical and the primary function (as a revising of primary legislation before it is enacted) seems to work pretty well.
The people who didn't like Farage before the election are the same ones who don't like him now, saying the same thing. Quelle surprise
I don't say they have to like him, but they shouldn't be blinded by their own feelings into assuming that's what the 4m UKIP voters think too
I don't say he should lead any campaign, neither should any UKIP politician. But farage doesn't say that either ..... We see today the reluctance of Tories on here to even admit the election result! The partisan nature in here really is incredible
Nigel Farage will need to be dragged off the public stage with a walking stick round the neck. He's the very definition of an attention whore.
As I said earlier, a vote on the EU referendum is not just about the EU, it is about the direction the country takes after the vote. If that is in the direction of small-minded buffoons, I'll probably prefer to stick with arrogant but moderately competent Eurocrats.
People who are unconcerned about Nigel Farage telling me that they are unconcerned about Nigel Farage aren't really giving me (or any of the absolute majority of the population that don't like him) any very useful information.
I agree. But I think that the small-minded buffoons are not the ones who will direct the UK should it vote Out. FWIW I think Ukip and Farage are a busted flush and the apparent direction of the Tories is away from rather than to Ukip. So I am a little more hopeful than you on this score.
I do not like the EU's direction of travel and don't think it is the right one for the UK. But if Leave want to convince me they need to present an attractive, open, forward-looking view of the UK, one at ease with the modern world not one which harks back to some imagined 1950's utopia when foreigners had to queue at the Aliens desk at passport control. Farage is absolutely the wrong man to do that.
Where I am coming from in some ways. Probably most succinctly summed up as "If we leave, we can be Iceland"
(I appreciate that it's not as simple or reductionist as that, but in essence - being modern, forward-looking, in EEA and EFTA to the degree that is most helpful for trade but being independent from the bureaucratic excesses of the 'European Project')
Iceland is actually in Schengen at the moment.
As is Norway. As would Scotland if it left the UK and joined either the EEA or EU. It is a requirement for European countries who join with the EEA and EU. If we left the EU, would we be able to stay out?
No it is not. That is an outright lie. Schengen membership is not a requirement of EEA membership.
I cannot understand why anyone who lives in the UK would want to be in Schengen.. why...
When you're stuck for half an hour in Stansted at 11pm on a Sunday evening in the passport queue, Schengen seems very appealing indeed.
For those who travel regularly to their second homes in Europe maybe.
For everyone else, it's less of an issue.
We were asked for a reason why anyone would want to be in Schengen, so I gave one. It affects anyone who flies in the EU, not just those with second homes in the EU.
It's one of the very most popular EU policies on continental Europe.
I find it a wonderful concept. I often drive into France, Belgium Netherlands and Germany in one day. With three border crossings that would be a pain. I zig zag between Netherlands and Germany at will. There is no problem going to Denmark. Any further and I fly. On a highly populated section of the continent with good transport links and cross border trade it is almost essential to have freedom of movement across borders.
Add in a ferry, tunnel or plane and the border is less of an issue, you have to slow down and stop anyway.
In any case, at the risk of repeating myself, I do not think that Farage should lead any campaign. I reckon Michael Portillo is the best person to do so, and would love him to get involved.
Farage would be well employed campaigning in UKIP friendly seats to fire up the troops.. as I say, and as the poll @Antifrank referenced shows, he is very popular with them
On that we are agreed. The problem is Farage doesn't agree with that (though he used to).
He said, on the This Week programme that we have discussed, that he thought the best person to lead a campaign was somebody not connected with politics, but that different sections of society needed to be reached under the umbrella of that group. Seems fair enough to me, and as I say Farage is very popular with certain sections of society (36% it seems) so why not let him crack on with them while others reach out to the rest?
"4 million is not even one in six of the 30 million you need to appeal to in order to win the vote."
But if 30,000,000 is needed to win, you are assuming the electorate who vote is close to 60,000,000. I now we've had a lot of immigration lately but our population isn't that high.
I suspect IN is still favourite but Europe are helping the OUT vote at the moment.
No I think 25.4 million is the approximate amount you need to record a vote for the winning side. But if you appeal to only a fraction of the electorate you will get less than that fraction - see for instance Miliband's 35% strategy that got a 29.0% vote. About 20% of those you appeal to will not necessarily vote for you.
If you want to get over 25 million votes you need to appeal to at least 30 million people - that gives say 20 million definite votes and 10 million waverers splitting 50-50. To win a majority you need to appeal to well over the majority.
It seems things to me that this is potentially the single most dangerous flash point in the world, where a mistake could rapidly escalate into a disaster.
I would have thought Russians or NATO "accidentally, brutally" shooting down each other's planes over Syria would be more serious?
There is no NATO mutual defense commitment in Syria. Article 5 of NATO treaty
I cannot understand why anyone who lives in the UK would want to be in Schengen.. why...
When you're stuck for half an hour in Stansted at 11pm on a Sunday evening in the passport queue, Schengen seems very appealing indeed.
For those who travel regularly to their second homes in Europe maybe.
For everyone else, it's less of an issue.
We were asked for a reason why anyone would want to be in Schengen, so I gave one. It affects anyone who flies in the EU, not just those with second homes in the EU.
It's one of the very most popular EU policies on continental Europe.
Is it really?
Four fifths of Germans want a return of border controls:
Just over 30 million voted in the 2015 GE (66% turnout). I'd suggest turnout will be less so 15 million is more than enough. We pedants like this sort of thing.
It seems things to me that this is potentially the single most dangerous flash point in the world, where a mistake could rapidly escalate into a disaster.
That depends on whether the Russians play silly beggars and ignore sovereign borders.
What's the other option - sit idly by, and let them get on with it?
Quite the contrary. I think a more - but not too - robust presence now is in order precisely to affect Putin's calculations in a sensible direction.
Schengen works to a certain extent in mainland Europe because of all the land borders..The UK is not part of that..Here in Italy there is deep concern about who is actually in the country..the Italian authorities and all of the other EU countries do not have a clue..
"4 million is not even one in six of the 30 million you need to appeal to in order to win the vote."
But if 30,000,000 is needed to win, you are assuming the electorate who vote is close to 60,000,000. I now we've had a lot of immigration lately but our population isn't that high.
I suspect IN is still favourite but Europe are helping the OUT vote at the moment.
No I think 25.4 million is the approximate amount you need to record a vote for the winning side. But if you appeal to only a fraction of the electorate you will get less than that fraction - see for instance Miliband's 35% strategy that got a 29.0% vote. About 20% of those you appeal to will not necessarily vote for you.
If you want to get over 25 million votes you need to appeal to at least 30 million people - that gives say 20 million definite votes and 10 million waverers splitting 50-50. To win a majority you need to appeal to well over the majority.
My estimate is that you need c.14.5m to win, given a likely turnout of about 29m.
Just over 30 million voted in the 2015 GE (66% turnout). I'd suggest turnout will be less so 15 million is more than enough. We pedants like this sort of thing.
Sheldon Cooper rules.
You're right, I misread the number on my phone (the table opened weird), my mistake.
Approximately 16 million yes votes will be needed which means appealing to at least 20 million voters then.
So... In wins, EU tries to rush through more integration (the British people voted for it - that'll be the line). Meanwhile. Germany discovers having a few million 'Syrians' and their families isn't conducive to social harmony, and deporting them is, shall we say, tricky. Of course, if you give them citizenship and passports...
If there's a bet on a second referendum within a decade, that could be worth a look (long time frame, though, so the odds would need to be quite long).
I cannot understand why anyone who lives in the UK would want to be in Schengen.. why...
When you're stuck for half an hour in Stansted at 11pm on a Sunday evening in the passport queue, Schengen seems very appealing indeed.
For those who travel regularly to their second homes in Europe maybe.
For everyone else, it's less of an issue.
We were asked for a reason why anyone would want to be in Schengen, so I gave one. It affects anyone who flies in the EU, not just those with second homes in the EU.
It's one of the very most popular EU policies on continental Europe.
I find it a wonderful concept. I often drive into France, Belgium Netherlands and Germany in one day. With three border crossings that would be a pain. I zig zag between Netherlands and Germany at will. There is no problem going to Denmark. Any further and I fly. On a highly populated section of the continent with good transport links and cross border trade it is almost essential to have freedom of movement across borders.
Add in a ferry, tunnel or plane and the border is less of an issue, you have to slow down and stop anyway.
I find it a wonderful concept also - I sneaked across the Mediterranean from Libya. After a few weeks in a camp I was granted political asylum and could move around quite freely. I picked up my weapons and explosives from readily available supplies and was able to launch (with my friends) a serious attack on the European Parliament at Strasbourg.
It seems things to me that this is potentially the single most dangerous flash point in the world, where a mistake could rapidly escalate into a disaster.
That depends on whether the Russians play silly beggars and ignore sovereign borders.
What's the other option - sit idly by, and let them get on with it?
Quite the contrary. I think a more - but not too - robust presence now is in order precisely to affect Putin's calculations in a sensible direction.
Putin (And to a lesser extent IS vis a vis Turkey) must be left in no doubt that Article 5 of NATO will be upheld utterly and remorsesly. This, far more so than any Nuclear defence system, is the basis of the security of the Western world.
It seems things to me that this is potentially the single most dangerous flash point in the world, where a mistake could rapidly escalate into a disaster.
That depends on whether the Russians play silly beggars and ignore sovereign borders.
What's the other option - sit idly by, and let them get on with it?
Quite the contrary. I think a more - but not too - robust presence now is in order precisely to affect Putin's calculations in a sensible direction.
Like all bullies Putin exploits weakness and respects strength.
I'd like to say I'm surprised, but i'm not. I am very disappointed.
Hopefully, you can't fatten a pig on market day. At present, Conservative voters aren't very impressed by the EU. Will they change their minds if the Prime Minister says it's wonderful?
I cannot understand why anyone who lives in the UK would want to be in Schengen.. why...
When you're stuck for half an hour in Stansted at 11pm on a Sunday evening in the passport queue, Schengen seems very appealing indeed.
For those who travel regularly to their second homes in Europe maybe.
For everyone else, it's less of an issue.
We were asked for a reason why anyone would want to be in Schengen, so I gave one. It affects anyone who flies in the EU, not just those with second homes in the EU.
It's one of the very most popular EU policies on continental Europe.
I find it a wonderful concept. I often drive into France, Belgium Netherlands and Germany in one day. With three border crossings that would be a pain. I zig zag between Netherlands and Germany at will. There is no problem going to Denmark. Any further and I fly. On a highly populated section of the continent with good transport links and cross border trade it is almost essential to have freedom of movement across borders.
Add in a ferry, tunnel or plane and the border is less of an issue, you have to slow down and stop anyway.
I find it a wonderful concept also - I sneaked across the Mediterranean from Libya. After a few weeks in a camp I was granted political asylum and could move around quite freely. I picked up my weapons and explosives from readily available supplies and was able to launch (with my friends) a serious attack on the European Parliament at Strasbourg.
We've had free movement of people between Ireland and the UK for hundreds of years.
Even during the troubles, while there might have been a soldier with a gun at the border, you could pass freely between the countries.
Are we planning on changing that?
EDIT to add: if we are, it would have a pretty awful effect on the economies in close contact to the border, and where people regularly commute across the border for jobs, deliveries and supply chains.
As Ireland would not be joining Schengen, I don't see why we'd want to change the relationship we have with Ireland. (To add: if we were going to attempt to change it, it might catalyse a very negative vote for Brexit in Northern Ireland.)
We've had free movement of people between Ireland and the UK for hundreds of years.
Even during the troubles, while there might have been a soldier with a gun at the border, you could pass freely between the countries.
Are we planning on changing that?
Errm Yes, quite. I don't see why EU exit should preclude freedom of movement between Ireland and England ! Could we possibly become part of Schengen on EU exit ? - I think South Korea is as part of their trade deal...
So... In wins, EU tries to rush through more integration (the British people voted for it - that'll be the line). Meanwhile. Germany discovers having a few million 'Syrians' and their families isn't conducive to social harmony, and deporting them is, shall we say, tricky. Of course, if you give them citizenship and passports...
If there's a bet on a second referendum within a decade, that could be worth a look (long time frame, though, so the odds would need to be quite long).
A vote for IN is a vote for the direction the EU is taking.. It backs Mrs Merton's invite to 800k migrants, the setting up of an EU army etc
All we have to protect us is the promise of renegotiation from a man who wears EU cufflinks, promised to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands and increased it, and pretended to have halved an EU bill but paid the whole lot.
All I can gleen from this is that David Cameron likes mass immigration and the EU Superstate.. I wonder why on earth he promised a referendum on it
I'd like to say I'm surprised, but i'm not. I am very disappointed.
"We need a say over the rules. That is what we get sitting round that table.”
The problem is right now we don't really get a say. France and Germany agree, and push through a bloc vote. Hopefully Cameron is saying this because he is negotiating a double QMV or red card system or something similar.
All the same old shibboleths and cliches. It reminds me of the previous generation of politicians who said the same about the ERM and the euro.
It may need the next generation of politicians to eventually take us out, but goodness knows how much damage will be done in the meantime.
We've had free movement of people between Ireland and the UK for hundreds of years.
Even during the troubles, while there might have been a soldier with a gun at the border, you could pass freely between the countries.
Are we planning on changing that?
But Ireland now has free movement of people with the rest of Europe. Would the free movement across the British Isles apply only to British and Irish citizens?
rcs1000..If we have to then yes..it is not really a problem..if you arrive in a port or airport then you just have your passport noted..It increases security.. closes down a very open door..a small price to pay and it should have happened a long time ago..in this incredibly volatile and unsafe world it is just another way to protect the country..
On Brexit. Genuine question. What happens to Ireland if Britain leaves the EU and there's no more free movement?
I don't think it would be too much of a problem. Ireland has border controls with the Schengen area, so can stop illegal migrants. Legal EU citizens won't give up that for illegal UK residency.
We've had free movement of people between Ireland and the UK for hundreds of years.
Even during the troubles, while there might have been a soldier with a gun at the border, you could pass freely between the countries.
Are we planning on changing that?
Errm Yes, quite. I don't see why EU exit should preclude freedom of movement between Ireland and England ! Could we possibly become part of Schengen on EU exit ? - I think South Korea is as part of their trade deal...
Some countries do not have visa requirements to enter a Schengen area and then subsequently travel unhindered. But the point is even if you do have a Schengen visa then you can travel unhindered.
It seems things to me that this is potentially the single most dangerous flash point in the world, where a mistake could rapidly escalate into a disaster.
That depends on whether the Russians play silly beggars and ignore sovereign borders.
What's the other option - sit idly by, and let them get on with it?
Quite the contrary. I think a more - but not too - robust presence now is in order precisely to affect Putin's calculations in a sensible direction.
Putin (And to a lesser extent IS vis a vis Turkey) must be left in no doubt that Article 5 of NATO will be upheld utterly and remorsesly. This, far more so than any Nuclear defence system, is the basis of the security of the Western world.
Totally agreed. Our presence there should be to make precisely that point. However, we don't need to overdo the message to the extent that the strength of the message creates a new issue.
rcs1000..If we have to then yes..it is not really a problem..if you arrive in a port or airport then you just have your passport noted..It increases security.. closes down a very open door..a small price to pay and it should have happened a long time ago..in this incredibly volatile and unsafe world it is just another way to protect the country..
Ports and airports is fine, obviously, in that you need a passport already. But it's not like we're getting refugees from the Republic crossing the border.
If you go to Northern Ireland, there are villages that straddle the border. You can wander - and people do - out of your home in the Northern Ireland, walk 150 yards to the pub in the Republic, and then walk back again after closing time.
Constructing barbed wire fences, and adding border controls there would be enormously disruptive.
We never needed it even when we had the IRA blowing up bombs in London the 1970s. Why would we need it now?
"The greatest disappointment was the anti-immigration speech by the Home Secretary. She simply got it wrong. To be criticised by the IoD and the CBI is a car crash of epic proportions. She simply is no longer a credible leadership contender."
"The greatest disappointment was the anti-immigration speech by the Home Secretary. She simply got it wrong. To be criticised by the IoD and the CBI is a car crash of epic proportions. She simply is no longer a credible leadership contender."
I'd consider being criticised by the CBI and IOD a badge of honour.
Frank Booth ..Absolutely sweet FA..and that same person could drive a vehicle stuffed with guns and semtex into any UK city.. it is and has always been total insanity
I'd like to say I'm surprised, but i'm not. I am very disappointed.
Hopefully, you can't fatten a pig on market day. At present, Conservative voters aren't very impressed by the EU. Will they change their minds if the Prime Minister says it's wonderful?
But the media are crap at this. How many have exposed and headlined the 'halved the bill' bollocks that we paid in full the other week? How many picked up on his very telling EU passage yesterday?
Also, certain journalists and commentators are convinced Cameron is leading the British Left now after he gave a shout out to discrimination.
He was talking about ending inequality of opportunity in applying for and obtaining jobs, and consequent social cohesion - not income redistribution, quotas and levelling incomes - but some seem totally unable to tell the difference.
Given this basic incompetence, how do we expect his weaselling to be exposed on the EU?
We've had free movement of people between Ireland and the UK for hundreds of years.
Even during the troubles, while there might have been a soldier with a gun at the border, you could pass freely between the countries.
Are we planning on changing that?
UK and Ireland had confidence in each others external border controls. They had a history of being a union indeed. I was stopped a few years ago by two armed police as I crossed to the south, at Enniskillen I think.
Frank Booth ..Absolutely sweet FA..and that same person could drive a vehicle stuffed with guns and semtex into any UK city.. it is and has always been total insanity
No, it was a cost benefit analysis by governments of the day.
A non-porous border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, that precluded tunnels and the like, would have been ruinously expensive, and would have had appalling implications for the economy of Northern Ireland.
It was recognised that attempting to seal off Northern Ireland would be expensive, and would lead to dramatically lower economic growth in the province.
rcs1000 .. Personally I do not give a fiddlers fuck about some inconvenience to some village dwellers on the Irish borders..The place is a sieve and it is seen as a sieve..it should be controlled .
rcs1000 .. Personally I do not give a fiddlers fuck about some inconvenience to some village dwellers on the Irish borders..The place is a sieve and it is seen as a sieve..it should be controlled .
You would decimate the economy of Northern Ireland for what purpose?
What would you gain?
There are fields on either side of the border, there are buildings. How would you stop a tunnel?
There are costs to every action. The governments of the day took the decision - rightly - that if you impoverish the people you serve (the population of Northern Ireland), then they will choose to leave.
There is clearly an expectation amongst leading EU politicians that the UK will eventually join the Euro and embrace the integrationalist agenda. They seem completely incapable of accomodating countries who do not want to form a United States of Europe.
The UK will always be seen as awkward and sidelined as long as they refuse to accomodate countries seeking a looser relationship.
The UK will be increasingly marginalised and lose what little influence they have. We will never be taken seriously within the EU as long as we object to ideas such as ceding further sovereignty, the creation of an EU army, police force, etc.
"The greatest disappointment was the anti-immigration speech by the Home Secretary. She simply got it wrong. To be criticised by the IoD and the CBI is a car crash of epic proportions. She simply is no longer a credible leadership contender."
Too many business people love cheap, malleable labour. And they don't live near the ghettos. A few years ago I was canvassing for a councillor. A constituent told me that people in his workplace were being undercut by immigrants. I told the councillor who shrugged and said he employed migrants too.
I used to think Leave had to provide me with details of a better alternative in order for me to consider switching sides, but not any more. Staying in seems likely to perpetuate the toxic and bitter situation we find ourselves in - better to plunge into the unknown and see what happens. If it's a mistake, well, we deal with it but at least the issue is settled. Stay in, and we'll still bitch and moan and the EU will bitch and moan back, it'll be unhappy, pulling in all sorts of directions, and unhelpful.
Better the devil you know, used to be a considerable factor in my REMAIN tendency but the unknown consequences of LEAVE now seem increasingly attractive judged against the certain negatives of REMAIN as Merckel drives the EU bus into the economic and social morass she has created. Even the BBC can no longer ignore the fact that Germany is starting to kick off.
Off-Topic (though I will bring it towards the issue of the UK/EU etc) - I'm looking forward to The Last Kingdom soon to be broadcast on BBC Two.
Finally a proper historical-based TV drama based on the formation of England / the era of Alfred the Great and the defence of Wessex from the Danes. Far too many people have the notion that English history began in 1066... frankly I'm amazed more aren't interested in how one of the world's greatest ever nation states was born.
It does of course relate to the question of national identity today - Englishness, Britishness, being "European" - not just on the matter of the UK's place in Europe, or the future of the British Union, but also of what to do wrt devolution in England/EVEL. England was unified into one kingdom - a hugely successful nation state - and I'll be damned to see it broken up or made into a province of some European empire.
"The greatest disappointment was the anti-immigration speech by the Home Secretary. She simply got it wrong. To be criticised by the IoD and the CBI is a car crash of epic proportions. She simply is no longer a credible leadership contender."
Too many business people love cheap, malleable labour. And they don't live near the ghettos. A few years ago I was canvassing for a councillor. A constituent told me that people in his workplace were being undercut by immigrants. I told the councillor who shrugged and said he employed migrants too.
It is a problem with free market capitalism.. the solution, in my opinion, is a combination of the free market and over arching protectionism
So, jobs paying under a certain level of wage (15k perhaps?) would only be available to British citizens, and anyone found employing a foreigner would be breaking the law (unless a permit had been issued). The people employed at this level are automatically protected by a trade union called the government
Over this level the free market kicks in and anyone can be employed from anywhere in the world solely on their ability
I would combine this with a gradual reduction in JSA benefit to people that were not taking unskilled jobs on offer at the Job Centre
rcs1000..I understand and get what you are saying but we have to stem the free flow of non accountable people possibly using S Ireland as an easy route into the UK..If that inconveniences some folk living on the borders then so be it...and I do not think for a second that NI would become impoverished..all we need to do is put passport controls in.. no big deal
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
A couple whose baby was adopted after they were wrongly accused of abuse are unlikely to ever see the child again despite being cleared, their lawyer has said.
Three years ago, Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter, from Guildford, Surrey, took the then six-week-old infant to accident and emergency after noticing bleeding in the baby’s mouth following a feed.
Bruises and what were thought to be fractures were noticed by hospital staff and a few days later the couple were charged with child cruelty and the baby was taken into care.
However, the criminal case against the couple collapsed at Guildford Crown Court after new medical evidence showed there were no signs of abuse.
"A Surrey County Council spokesman told the BBC: “With any case like this, we only have one thing in mind and that’s the welfare of the child.”"
Fine. Then put it back with its parents then.
This is about them saving face. I would have thought that, in this case, the parents have a strong right of appeal.
Their own lawyer disagrees and says they will probably need a change in the law.
The child was not only put into care but actually adopted?
You'd struggle to unwind that.
If I had adopted a child in this situation, better to handback at 3 years than face the awful traumas on the biological parents and the child rumbling for many many years (once child learns truth). I know of one very stable person brought up by grandparents from early age to 8 and then taken on by parents. The adopting parents ideally should still be involved in the early period and to help ease the transition.
The child is 3, and having been taken into care at 6 weeks will likely have no idea or memory of it's biological parents.
How traumatic do you think it would be now, to take it away from those it's thinks of as 'mummy and daddy' and hand it over to people who are effectively strangers? A child that young wouldn't understand.
It's an awful decision to leave things as they are, but perhaps the better of a bad decision in the long run.
The child will eventually have to be told. Learn it now and be returned in a controlled manner or learn it at say age 10 and then have that hanging over their head for the rest of the child's life? Children swapped at birth by mistake get swapped back.
I'm not sure why we should model ourselves after any European country economically. It is the East Asian tigers we should look to...
With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries...What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural backround, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient. - Lee Kuan Yew, 1992.
LKY is acknowledging that Singapore scarcely qualified as a democracy under his rule. Do you think we would accept his kind of democracy?
I cannot understand why anyone who lives in the UK would want to be in Schengen.. why...
When you're stuck for half an hour in Stansted at 11pm on a Sunday evening in the passport queue, Schengen seems very appealing indeed.
For those who travel regularly to their second homes in Europe maybe.
For everyone else, it's less of an issue.
There are something like 500,000 expats living in France and Spain alone - many are very worried at the prospect of Brexit affecting their rights in the adoptive countries. This constituency will inevitably vote to remain unless their concerns are addressed. If the result is close their votes could be decisive.
"The greatest disappointment was the anti-immigration speech by the Home Secretary. She simply got it wrong. To be criticised by the IoD and the CBI is a car crash of epic proportions. She simply is no longer a credible leadership contender."
Too many business people love cheap, malleable labour. And they don't live near the ghettos. A few years ago I was canvassing for a councillor. A constituent told me that people in his workplace were being undercut by immigrants. I told the councillor who shrugged and said he employed migrants too.
It is a problem with free market capitalism.. the solution, in my opinion, is a combination of the free market and over arching protectionism
So, jobs paying under a certain level of wage (15k perhaps?) would only be available to British citizens, and anyone found employing a foreigner would be breaking the law (unless a permit had been issued). The people employed at this level are automatically protected by a trade union called the government
Over this level the free market kicks in and anyone can be employed from anywhere in the world solely on their ability
I would combine this with a gradual reduction in JSA benefit to people that were not taking unskilled jobs on offer at the Job Centre
The trouble is that successful economies normally import labour at the top and the bottom end of the pay scale. Because it's a global economy at the top, and in a strong economy the indigenous population aren't prepared to do the stuff at the bottom.
The UK is neither a bastion nor a good example of a democracy. It has only one of its two chambers subject to the popular vote and the head of state is unelected and appointed on a hereditary basis.
And yet - our system works well. Not brilliantly and with room for improvement, but a lot better than some countries.
For example, Zimbabwe has an elected Head of State and elected upper and lower chambers, so presumably it is a model of democracy that we should be following?
So you think Zimbabwe is a western liberal democracy. How utterly infantile.
No wonder you know your place and are happy tugging your forelock to another purely due to an accident of birth. Believing in and trying to justify Monarchy is a certain sign of mental incapacity.
"The greatest disappointment was the anti-immigration speech by the Home Secretary. She simply got it wrong. To be criticised by the IoD and the CBI is a car crash of epic proportions. She simply is no longer a credible leadership contender."
Too many business people love cheap, malleable labour. And they don't live near the ghettos. A few years ago I was canvassing for a councillor. A constituent told me that people in his workplace were being undercut by immigrants. I told the councillor who shrugged and said he employed migrants too.
It is a problem with free market capitalism.. the solution, in my opinion, is a combination of the free market and over arching protectionism
So, jobs paying under a certain level of wage (15k perhaps?) would only be available to British citizens, and anyone found employing a foreigner would be breaking the law (unless a permit had been issued). The people employed at this level are automatically protected by a trade union called the government
Over this level the free market kicks in and anyone can be employed from anywhere in the world solely on their ability
I would combine this with a gradual reduction in JSA benefit to people that were not taking unskilled jobs on offer at the Job Centre
The trouble is that successful economies normally import labour at the top and the bottom end of the pay scale. Because it's a global economy at the top, and in a strong economy the indigenous population aren't prepared to do the stuff at the bottom.
I think that the protectionism the people at the bottom of the pay scale are getting justifies an almost total stop to benefits for all bar the disabled
I cannot understand why anyone who lives in the UK would want to be in Schengen.. why...
When you're stuck for half an hour in Stansted at 11pm on a Sunday evening in the passport queue, Schengen seems very appealing indeed.
For those who travel regularly to their second homes in Europe maybe.
For everyone else, it's less of an issue.
We were asked for a reason why anyone would want to be in Schengen, so I gave one. It affects anyone who flies in the EU, not just those with second homes in the EU.
It's one of the very most popular EU policies on continental Europe.
I'm not sure how popular it still is but continental Europe has very little choice in the matter these days. A fact acknowledged by Merckel. We are an island nation. What percentage of the UK's population do you suppose would vote for an open border with the EU?
The UK is neither a bastion nor a good example of a democracy. It has only one of its two chambers subject to the popular vote and the head of state is unelected and appointed on a hereditary basis.
And yet - our system works well. Not brilliantly and with room for improvement, but a lot better than some countries.
For example, Zimbabwe has an elected Head of State and elected upper and lower chambers, so presumably it is a model of democracy that we should be following?
So you think Zimbabwe is a western liberal democracy. How utterly infantile.
No wonder you know your place and are happy tugging your forelock to another purely due to an accident of birth. Believing in and trying to justify Monarchy is a certain sign of mental incapacity.
And you think we're NOT a western liberal democracy because we have a constitutional monarchy?
Norway Sweden Denmark Canada Australia New Zealand Netherlands Luxembourg Belgium Spain
All peaceful, prosperous (well, apart from Spain.. ) western liberal democracies. Oh and the UK too of course.
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
A Tinder user secured a match on the dating app, with a girl believed to be based in Australia, while masquerading as a carpet.
“I want to get laid without being walked all over,” Clive the carpet, who is 25, explains in his profile, listing his likes as vacuuming and shampooing.
Clive may hate red wine and dirty shoes, his profile reveals, but that didn’t stop one admirer swiping right on his profile.
I cannot understand why anyone who lives in the UK would want to be in Schengen.. why...
When you're stuck for half an hour in Stansted at 11pm on a Sunday evening in the passport queue, Schengen seems very appealing indeed.
For those who travel regularly to their second homes in Europe maybe.
For everyone else, it's less of an issue.
There are something like 500,000 expats living in France and Spain alone - many are very worried at the prospect of Brexit affecting their rights in the adoptive countries. This constituency will inevitably vote to remain unless their concerns are addressed. If the result is close their votes could be decisive.
will they get a vote?
Yes. If they can vote in the GE then I believe they can vote in a referendum.
I'd like to say I'm surprised, but i'm not. I am very disappointed.
I don't comprehend why you are either. Cameron has never once said we get nothing from the EU. Cameron has never once said he would campaign for exit. Cameron has never once said he wants us to leave.
Cameron has always said the EU needs reform and that he will get reform and then he hopes the country will vote to stay but it will be the countries choice. Nothing has changed.
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
Hodges is the laughing stock. The Telegraph should rid itself of his boring and failed propaganda, the sooner the better.
Hodges plays his role well - Tory Telegraph readers (myself included) get to wallow in the death of the Labour Party told by a supporter of the Labour Party - it's validating for us.
''There are something like 500,000 expats living in France and Spain alone - many are very worried at the prospect of Brexit affecting their rights in the adoptive countries. ''
I suppose the time when people took the consequences for their own decisions is long gone.
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
Hodges is the laughing stock. The Telegraph should rid itself of his boring and failed propaganda, the sooner the better.
How is the sage of the Labour Party a laughing stock? He was 100% right about Miliband, the electorate vindicated him completely. Labour decided to turn around and double-down on their mistakes.
"The greatest disappointment was the anti-immigration speech by the Home Secretary. She simply got it wrong. To be criticised by the IoD and the CBI is a car crash of epic proportions. She simply is no longer a credible leadership contender."
Too many business people love cheap, malleable labour. And they don't live near the ghettos. A few years ago I was canvassing for a councillor. A constituent told me that people in his workplace were being undercut by immigrants. I told the councillor who shrugged and said he employed migrants too.
It is a problem with free market capitalism.. the solution, in my opinion, is a combination of the free market and over arching protectionism
So, jobs paying under a certain level of wage (15k perhaps?) would only be available to British citizens, and anyone found employing a foreigner would be breaking the law (unless a permit had been issued). The people employed at this level are automatically protected by a trade union called the government
Over this level the free market kicks in and anyone can be employed from anywhere in the world solely on their ability
I would combine this with a gradual reduction in JSA benefit to people that were not taking unskilled jobs on offer at the Job Centre
The trouble is that successful economies normally import labour at the top and the bottom end of the pay scale. Because it's a global economy at the top, and in a strong economy the indigenous population aren't prepared to do the stuff at the bottom.
I think that the protectionism the people at the bottom of the pay scale are getting justifies an almost total stop to benefits for all bar the disabled
And so do I, but I suspect we may be in quite a small minority; and also the first against the wall when the revolution comes....
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
I'd like to say I'm surprised, but i'm not. I am very disappointed.
This is the Grauniad! Get the country talking about anything other than Corbyn and the Labour mire. Cameron knows only to well that if he tries to sell the nation a pup the media will crucify him.
The UK is neither a bastion nor a good example of a democracy. It has only one of its two chambers subject to the popular vote and the head of state is unelected and appointed on a hereditary basis.
And yet - our system works well. Not brilliantly and with room for improvement, but a lot better than some countries.
For example, Zimbabwe has an elected Head of State and elected upper and lower chambers, so presumably it is a model of democracy that we should be following?
So you think Zimbabwe is a western liberal democracy. How utterly infantile.
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
There's also the question of choosing who to align oneself with - am I a person like David Cameron, or am I a person like Nigel Farage. To have a chance Leave needs to get some seriously credible spokesmen.
I'd like to say I'm surprised, but i'm not. I am very disappointed.
This is the Grauniad! Get the country talking about anything other than Corbyn and the Labour mire. Cameron knows only to well that if he tries to sell the nation a pup the media will crucify him.
You make a good point, as opposed to all the other hysteria
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
Hodges is the laughing stock. The Telegraph should rid itself of his boring and failed propaganda, the sooner the better.
How is the sage of the Labour Party a laughing stock? He was 100% right about Miliband, the electorate vindicated him completely. Labour decided to turn around and double-down on their mistakes.
Labour is a laughing stock, Hodges in an oracle.
Dan " David Miliband has won " Hodges is a useless idiot. The Telegraph should stop wasting its money and reputation by publishing his garbage.
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
There's also the question of choosing who to align oneself with - am I a person like David Cameron, or am I a person like Nigel Farage. To have a chance Leave needs to get some seriously credible spokesmen.
I agree. But we were talking about your personal view and I was just making it clear that the one thing you want is the one thing this referendum will not give you no matter which side wins.
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
Hodges is the laughing stock. The Telegraph should rid itself of his boring and failed propaganda, the sooner the better.
How is the sage of the Labour Party a laughing stock? He was 100% right about Miliband, the electorate vindicated him completely. Labour decided to turn around and double-down on their mistakes.
Labour is a laughing stock, Hodges in an oracle.
Dan " David Miliband has won " Hodges is a useless idiot. The Telegraph should stop wasting its money and reputation by publishing his garbage.
Dan "Ed is Crap" Hodges has got everything right in the last five years. The Telegraph should enhance its reputation by continuing to publish the advice of a man who has got everything right about the Labour leaders relationship with the electorate as a whole.
Had Ed won the General Election you might have anything resembling a point. You don't.
Jeremy Corbyn sympathises with terrorists. Jeremy Corby hates Britain. Jeremy Corbyn hates you. You can’t vote for Jeremy Corbyn. You’d better vote for me instead.
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
Hodges is the laughing stock. The Telegraph should rid itself of his boring and failed propaganda, the sooner the better.
How is the sage of the Labour Party a laughing stock? He was 100% right about Miliband, the electorate vindicated him completely. Labour decided to turn around and double-down on their mistakes.
Labour is a laughing stock, Hodges in an oracle.
Dan " David Miliband has won " Hodges is a useless idiot. The Telegraph should stop wasting its money and reputation by publishing his garbage.
When you're called upon to give an opinion every day, you're going to be wrong a lot of the time!
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
There's also the question of choosing who to align oneself with - am I a person like David Cameron, or am I a person like Nigel Farage. To have a chance Leave needs to get some seriously credible spokesmen.
I agree. But we were talking about your personal view and I was just making it clear that the one thing you want is the one thing this referendum will not give you no matter which side wins.
Well you're probably right, but incremental change is always preferable to revolutionary change.
"The greatest disappointment was the anti-immigration speech by the Home Secretary. She simply got it wrong. To be criticised by the IoD and the CBI is a car crash of epic proportions. She simply is no longer a credible leadership contender."
Too many business people love cheap, malleable labour. And they don't live near the ghettos. A few years ago I was canvassing for a councillor. A constituent told me that people in his workplace were being undercut by immigrants. I told the councillor who shrugged and said he employed migrants too.
It is a problem with free market capitalism.. the solution, in my opinion, is a combination of the free market and over arching protectionism
So, jobs paying under a certain level of wage (15k perhaps?) would only be available to British citizens, and anyone found employing a foreigner would be breaking the law (unless a permit had been issued). The people employed at this level are automatically protected by a trade union called the government
Over this level the free market kicks in and anyone can be employed from anywhere in the world solely on their ability
I would combine this with a gradual reduction in JSA benefit to people that were not taking unskilled jobs on offer at the Job Centre
The trouble is that successful economies normally import labour at the top and the bottom end of the pay scale. Because it's a global economy at the top, and in a strong economy the indigenous population aren't prepared to do the stuff at the bottom.
I think that the protectionism the people at the bottom of the pay scale are getting justifies an almost total stop to benefits for all bar the disabled
And so do I, but I suspect we may be in quite a small minority; and also the first against the wall when the revolution comes....
Are you saying my opinion is of no consequence at all?!!
Is there anyone on here who was a probable LEAVE but has now veered towards REMAIN?
I was a fairly fervent get outer for years and years; even when it wasn't acceptable in polite company to say so.
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Whilst I understand that position I think that unfortunately you are going to get change anyway. The one thing that is not on the table at this referendum is more of the same. The choice will be between leaving or accepting far greater and far faster integration.
Why? Cameron is pushing an end to ever closer union, the UK will be voting on the EU without ever closer union. What possible reason do you have to believe integration will happen after that?
So... In wins, EU tries to rush through more integration (the British people voted for it - that'll be the line). Meanwhile. Germany discovers having a few million 'Syrians' and their families isn't conducive to social harmony, and deporting them is, shall we say, tricky. Of course, if you give them citizenship and passports...
If there's a bet on a second referendum within a decade, that could be worth a look (long time frame, though, so the odds would need to be quite long).
A vote for IN is a vote for the direction the EU is taking.. It backs Mrs Merton's invite to 800k migrants, the setting up of an EU army etc
All we have to protect us is the promise of renegotiation from a man who wears EU cufflinks, promised to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands and increased it, and pretended to have halved an EU bill but paid the whole lot.
All I can gleen from this is that David Cameron likes mass immigration and the EU Superstate.. I wonder why on earth he promised a referendum on it
The last point is much ignored. Cameron has to sell the deal to the nation which then votes. It is NOT Cameron agrees a deal and then asks whether he was right to do so. Although I'm sure there will be much heated debate, the final say belongs to the nation and woe betide the politician who gainsays that.
And you think we're NOT a western liberal democracy because we have a constitutional monarchy?
Norway Sweden Denmark Canada Australia New Zealand Netherlands Luxembourg Belgium Spain
All peaceful, prosperous (well, apart from Spain.. ) western liberal democracies. Oh and the UK too of course.
And if their monarch has any constitutional role they are not democracies either. Constitutional Monarchy is an oxymoron. As I understand it, some of those countries no longer offer a constitutional role to the monarch and are no longer Constitutional Monarchies.
It's an utterly irrelevant point any way. Justifying the maintenance of a monarchy is a mental illness.
Comments
"4 million is not even one in six of the 30 million you need to appeal to in order to win the vote."
But if 30,000,000 is needed to win, you are assuming the electorate who vote is close to 60,000,000. I now we've had a lot of immigration lately but our population isn't that high.
I suspect IN is still favourite but Europe are helping the OUT vote at the moment.
Add in a ferry, tunnel or plane and the border is less of an issue, you have to slow down and stop anyway.
If you want to get over 25 million votes you need to appeal to at least 30 million people - that gives say 20 million definite votes and 10 million waverers splitting 50-50. To win a majority you need to appeal to well over the majority.
Four fifths of Germans want a return of border controls:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/06/poll-four-fifths-germans-want-return-border-controls/
Just over 30 million voted in the 2015 GE (66% turnout). I'd suggest turnout will be less so 15 million is more than enough. We pedants like this sort of thing.
Sheldon Cooper rules.
Approximately 16 million yes votes will be needed which means appealing to at least 20 million voters then.
If there's a bet on a second referendum within a decade, that could be worth a look (long time frame, though, so the odds would need to be quite long).
I find it a wonderful concept also - I sneaked across the Mediterranean from Libya. After a few weeks in a camp I was granted political asylum and could move around quite freely. I picked up my weapons and explosives from readily available supplies and was able to launch (with my friends) a serious attack on the European Parliament at Strasbourg.
Even during the troubles, while there might have been a soldier with a gun at the border, you could pass freely between the countries.
Are we planning on changing that?
As Ireland would not be joining Schengen, I don't see why we'd want to change the relationship we have with Ireland. (To add: if we were going to attempt to change it, it might catalyse a very negative vote for Brexit in Northern Ireland.)
All we have to protect us is the promise of renegotiation from a man who wears EU cufflinks, promised to get immigration down to the 10s of thousands and increased it, and pretended to have halved an EU bill but paid the whole lot.
All I can gleen from this is that David Cameron likes mass immigration and the EU Superstate.. I wonder why on earth he promised a referendum on it
It may need the next generation of politicians to eventually take us out, but goodness knows how much damage will be done in the meantime.
If you go to Northern Ireland, there are villages that straddle the border. You can wander - and people do - out of your home in the Northern Ireland, walk 150 yards to the pub in the Republic, and then walk back again after closing time.
Constructing barbed wire fences, and adding border controls there would be enormously disruptive.
We never needed it even when we had the IRA blowing up bombs in London the 1970s. Why would we need it now?
"The greatest disappointment was the anti-immigration speech by the Home Secretary. She simply got it wrong. To be criticised by the IoD and the CBI is a car crash of epic proportions. She simply is no longer a credible leadership contender."
An ID card and a Schengen visa will not get you into Ireland if you are a Syrian migrant in Italy or Greece.
Also, certain journalists and commentators are convinced Cameron is leading the British Left now after he gave a shout out to discrimination.
He was talking about ending inequality of opportunity in applying for and obtaining jobs, and consequent social cohesion - not income redistribution, quotas and levelling incomes - but some seem totally unable to tell the difference.
Given this basic incompetence, how do we expect his weaselling to be exposed on the EU?
I was stopped a few years ago by two armed police as I crossed to the south, at Enniskillen I think.
A non-porous border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, that precluded tunnels and the like, would have been ruinously expensive, and would have had appalling implications for the economy of Northern Ireland.
It was recognised that attempting to seal off Northern Ireland would be expensive, and would lead to dramatically lower economic growth in the province.
Gordon Brown says David Cameron was “simply wrong” to say the Vow is being delivered... https://t.co/NnqpvNMzPm http://t.co/2tv4KzJnaL
What would you gain?
There are fields on either side of the border, there are buildings. How would you stop a tunnel?
There are costs to every action. The governments of the day took the decision - rightly - that if you impoverish the people you serve (the population of Northern Ireland), then they will choose to leave.
The UK will always be seen as awkward and sidelined as long as they refuse to accomodate countries seeking a looser relationship.
The UK will be increasingly marginalised and lose what little influence they have. We will never be taken seriously within the EU as long as we object to ideas such as ceding further sovereignty, the creation of an EU army, police force, etc.
A few years ago I was canvassing for a councillor. A constituent told me that people in his workplace were being undercut by immigrants. I told the councillor who shrugged and said he employed migrants too.
Finally a proper historical-based TV drama based on the formation of England / the era of Alfred the Great and the defence of Wessex from the Danes. Far too many people have the notion that English history began in 1066... frankly I'm amazed more aren't interested in how one of the world's greatest ever nation states was born.
It does of course relate to the question of national identity today - Englishness, Britishness, being "European" - not just on the matter of the UK's place in Europe, or the future of the British Union, but also of what to do wrt devolution in England/EVEL. England was unified into one kingdom - a hugely successful nation state - and I'll be damned to see it broken up or made into a province of some European empire.
So, jobs paying under a certain level of wage (15k perhaps?) would only be available to British citizens, and anyone found employing a foreigner would be breaking the law (unless a permit had been issued). The people employed at this level are automatically protected by a trade union called the government
Over this level the free market kicks in and anyone can be employed from anywhere in the world solely on their ability
I would combine this with a gradual reduction in JSA benefit to people that were not taking unskilled jobs on offer at the Job Centre
So, presented with this rather obvious line of attack, what have Jeremy Corbyn and his advisers decided to do? Obviously I wasn't present, but I think their strategy meeting probably went something like this: “Jeremy, David Cameron’s just accused you of hating Britain”. “The swine! What should we do about it?” “I know, how about we get a story up and running that you’re going to snub the Queen?” “Brilliant. Let’s go with that.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11919280/Jeremy-Corbyn-has-turned-the-Labour-Party-into-a-laughing-stock.html
'Aides say he had other commitments including 'some relaxation time' which meant he could not attend.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3264982/Fury-Corbyn-misses-meeting-Queen-HOLIDAY-Privy-Councillor-anyway.html#ixzz3nzo4xstQ
I now can't imagine voting to leave - my fear of change is increasing with my age.
Have a look on the BBC Two Facebook page for the latest trailer. The first line is EPIC.
"The idea of a single kingdom called England has to begin here."
Cue scenes of West Saxons under siege by the Danish hordes. Well, our nation had to be born somehow! Sumorsǣte ealle!
A whole new meaning to food porn.
No wonder you know your place and are happy tugging your forelock to another purely due to an accident of birth. Believing in and trying to justify Monarchy is a certain sign of mental incapacity.
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Belgium
Spain
All peaceful, prosperous (well, apart from Spain..
Fundamentally I also know I'll do whatever the leaders of big business tell me to do - and they'll say stay.
England should aspire to be a maritime Switzerland with a crown.
Cameron has always said the EU needs reform and that he will get reform and then he hopes the country will vote to stay but it will be the countries choice. Nothing has changed.
I suppose the time when people took the consequences for their own decisions is long gone.
Labour is a laughing stock, Hodges in an oracle.
He got May 2015 far more correctly than those who laughed at him.
His critique of labour then was spot on, if spiced up for his audience. It remains that way.
Diddums..........
Had Ed won the General Election you might have anything resembling a point. You don't.
It's an utterly irrelevant point any way. Justifying the maintenance of a monarchy is a mental illness.