OK. We understand. You've told us seventy nine times. You somehow think "immigration" has nothing to do with "the EU" in the minds of voters, despite all evidence to the contrary. Now shut the fuck up and tell us something that doesn't insult the intelligence of your readers. Thanks.
Intelligence? Ha Ever heard of the commonwealth? Pakistan India? Your favourite country, China... where does it stand on our immigrant stakes. I suppose you will be happy with Canadian immigrants, but tell us how many Canadian Citizens are immigrants, tell us what proportion of Canadian population is immigrant.
Christ on a bike.. did you actually manage to type that without your lips moving ? Its not complicated stuff, we should admit people to our country based on their value to the country, not based on where they are from or what colour their skin is. At the moment we disciminate against lots of nasty brown people and let in lots of nice white Europeans. More civilised countries like Canada and Australia admit people based on their skills, their ability to contribute and their lack of being a goddam security risk. We can make no such sensible decision, we have to admit EU scroungers, EU criminals and EU terrorists. Ask France how well the free movement of Labour did for their security last year.
If we were not in the EU, never having joined, then I think joining would have been a perennial demand of the moderate centre left and moderate centre right. Maybe not now though.
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100. I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
It will be funny when Disneyland sees the EC imposing a non-discriminatory pricing structure on them....
Travel companies are masters at evading that. No two rooms, no two packages, no two seats are ever exactly the same. In the US, the Robinson-Patman Act bans price discrimination, and the airlines in particular are spectacular at evading it.
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand he might like to explain why it costs more for brits to book tickets for Disneyland Paris than booking them in France.
Errr... because the Disney computers have worked out that people booking in the UK are less price conscious than those in France.
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand he might like to explain why it costs more for brits to book tickets for Disneyland Paris than booking them in France.
Errr... because the Disney computers have worked out that people booking in the UK are less price conscious than those in France.
Maybe the French aren't so in love with the fascist mouse ;-)
OK. We understand. You've told us seventy nine times. You somehow think "immigration" has nothing to do with "the EU" in the minds of voters, despite all evidence to the contrary. Now shut the fuck up and tell us something that doesn't insult the intelligence of your readers. Thanks.
Intelligence? Ha Ever heard of the commonwealth? Pakistan India? Your favourite country, China... where does it stand on our immigrant stakes. I suppose you will be happy with Canadian immigrants, but tell us how many Canadian Citizens are immigrants, tell us what proportion of Canadian population is immigrant.
Christ on a bike.. did you actually manage to type that without your lips moving ? Its not complicated stuff, we should admit people to our country based on their value to the country, not based on where they are from or what colour their skin is. At the moment we disciminate against lots of nasty brown people and let in lots of nice white Europeans. More civilised countries like Canada and Australia admit people based on their skills, their ability to contribute and their lack of being a goddam security risk. We can make no such sensible decision, we have to admit EU scroungers, EU criminals and EU terrorists. Ask France how well the free movement of Labour did for their security last year.
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
BB63...On most official forms there is no option if you are English The Scots,Welsh,and Irish can all tick their respective boxes but the English have to tick the British box..
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand he might like to explain why it costs more for brits to book tickets for Disneyland Paris than booking them in France.
It is far cheaper (>50%) to book a BA flight from Paris to New York via London + a return from London to Paris than it is to book direct from London to New York
i.e.
London -> Paris (EU return) Paris -> London -> New York (US return) New York -> London (US return)
You can then use or abandon the remaining 2 segments depending on whether you need the airmiles or not
Works like a charm... except the time my Chicago -> London flight was delayed and American kept trying to switch me to a Chicago -> Paris flight to be helpful
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
"The Sunday Times splashes on the intervention from Carolyn McCall, the boss of easyJet, who says Brexit would drive up the cost of air travel and herald a return to the days when flying was "reserved for the elite". Writing for the paper, she says: "The EU has brought huge benefits for UK travellers and businesses. Staying in the EU will ensure that they, and all of us, continue to receive them. How much you pay for your holiday really does depend on how much influence Britain has in Europe."
In a separate interview with The Sunday Times Peter Long, the outgoing boss of the TUI travel group, which owns Thomsons and First Choice holidays, said the safety of tourists caught up in terrorist attacks could also be compromised if Britain votes to leave. Long, who ran TUI when 33 of its customers were slaughtered by Islamist gunmen in Tunisia last year, warned that close co-operation with other EU countries was essential "to protect the security of our holidaymakers".
He added that Brexit would also cause a fall in the value of the pound: "For our customers, that means higher holiday prices and less spending money."
CEO of company with a high volume / low price model is worried that change will result in higher taxes resulting in lower passenger volumes and significantly lower margins for their businesses.
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
Do you think having Expedia cookies would reduce (cost conscious customer) or increase (already looking at flights so higher commitment) the price?
It depends on your previous behaviour. If you are a consummate shopper-around, it will lower it. (Or more likely, flash up a "limited time only" offer.)
If, on the other hand, you've paid full price in the past, they might bump the price up and carry a "Hurry! Only x rooms left at this price point" message.
Amazon charges you different prices for their own goods, depending on whether you regularly look at other sellers, and choose the cheapest. If you appear cost conscious to their systems, and they worry about losing you to other vendors, you'll get a lower price.
I routine reject/delete all third party cookies, so hopefully they know nothing about me (except what I let them know from my shopping habits with them)
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand he might like to explain why it costs more for brits to book tickets for Disneyland Paris than booking them in France.
It is far cheaper (>50%) to book a BA flight from Paris to New York via London + a return from London to Paris than it is to book direct from London to New York
i.e.
London -> Paris (EU return) Paris -> London -> New York (US return) New York -> London (US return)
You can then use or abandon the remaining 2 segments depending on whether you need the airmiles or not
Works like a charm... except the time my Chicago -> London flight was delayed and American kept trying to switch me to a Chicago -> Paris flight to be helpful
I remember a few years ago booking a Exeter -> Paris -> London -> NY and back, which was ridiculously cheaper than the same London -> NY return flight in the aforementioned trip.
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
"Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU"
Spot on....which was my entire point on this latest piece of scaremongering or as Charles describes it up thread much more eloquently than I.
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand he might like to explain why it costs more for brits to book tickets for Disneyland Paris than booking them in France.
It is far cheaper (>50%) to book a BA flight from Paris to New York via London + a return from London to Paris than it is to book direct from London to New York
i.e.
London -> Paris (EU return) Paris -> London -> New York (US return) New York -> London (US return)
You can then use or abandon the remaining 2 segments depending on whether you need the airmiles or not
Works like a charm... except the time my Chicago -> London flight was delayed and American kept trying to switch me to a Chicago -> Paris flight to be helpful
Airline pricing is regularly screwy like that. My wife went to South Africa last week. She flew Business Class Lufthansa via Frankfurt, because it was cheaper than a BA Return in Economy.
If she'd booked a flight from Frankfurt to Johannesburg direct, she'd have probably paid twice as much, maybe more.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
If we were not in the EU, never having joined, then I think joining would have been a perennial demand of the moderate centre left and moderate centre right. Maybe not now though.
Perhaps, though it might extend further right than you think. Remember Mrs Thatcher was in favour -- many on the right in particular believed that Continental discipline would arrest the post-war British economic malaise. It may well be that if we'd never joined, then after the last global financial crisis, Conservatives would point across the North Sea to Germany and preach the benefits of the Eurozone in reining in what they'd portray as Gordon Brown's fiscal incontinence.
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand he might like to explain why it costs more for brits to book tickets for Disneyland Paris than booking them in France.
Errr... because the Disney computers have worked out that people booking in the UK are less price conscious than those in France.
I tried previously to book on Air France French site to see what the difference actually was. I understand it is cheaper on the French site with a French address. However, Inserting my British address immediately changed the screen to the British site. Haven't tried it recently though?
The same happened when here in the UK to book flights to the States and a hotel. I got a friend in the USA to book a hotel and flight for me using their US address. It was then much cheaper for both. Doubt you could do that now of course with security etc.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
I'm finding Mr Meeks postings on the EU tedious. The premise of the latest thread is intellectuals will vote to Remain
If we were not in the EU, never having joined, then I think joining would have been a perennial demand of the moderate centre left and moderate centre right. Maybe not now though.
Perhaps, though it might extend further right than you think. Remember Mrs Thatcher was in favour -- many on the right in particular believed that Continental discipline would arrest the post-war British economic malaise. It may well be that if we'd never joined, then after the last global financial crisis, Conservatives would point across the North Sea to Germany and preach the benefits of the Eurozone in reining in what they'd portray as Gordon Brown's fiscal incontinence.
Possibly. It might also have been seen as a counter to Thatcherism on the left - as indeed, it did come to be seen.
I suppose the question is, if we hadn't joined in the 70s when would we have done? Late 90s maybe? Never is a possible answer of course.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
I'm finding Mr Meeks postings on the EU tedious. The premise of the latest thread is intellectuals will vote to Remain
Come on guys, it's a different perspective. This site would be a lot less interesting if we all agreed on everything.
OK. We understand. You've told us seventy nine times. You somehow think "immigration" has nothing to do with "the EU" in the minds of voters, despite all evidence to the contrary. Now shut the fuck up and tell us something that doesn't insult the intelligence of your readers. Thanks.
Intelligence? Ha Ever heard of the commonwealth? Pakistan India? Your favourite country, China... where does it stand on our immigrant stakes. I suppose you will be happy with Canadian immigrants, but tell us how many Canadian Citizens are immigrants, tell us what proportion of Canadian population is immigrant.
Christ on a bike.. did you actually manage to type that without your lips moving ? Its not complicated stuff, we should admit people to our country based on their value to the country, not based on where they are from or what colour their skin is. At the moment we disciminate against lots of nasty brown people and let in lots of nice white Europeans. More civilised countries like Canada and Australia admit people based on their skills, their ability to contribute and their lack of being a goddam security risk. We can make no such sensible decision, we have to admit EU scroungers, EU criminals and EU terrorists. Ask France how well the free movement of Labour did for their security last year.
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
Racists can go that way if they want, it only delays it by 3 years until the others get a EU passport from another country, but they might think that better than nothing. Also they have to be happy with taking white European scroungers, criminals and terrorists
OK. We understand. You've told us seventy nine times. You somehow think "immigration" has nothing to do with "the EU" in the minds of voters, despite all evidence to the contrary. Now shut the fuck up and tell us something that doesn't insult the intelligence of your readers. Thanks.
Intelligence? Ha Ever heard of the commonwealth? Pakistan India? Your favourite country, China... where does it stand on our immigrant stakes. I suppose you will be happy with Canadian immigrants, but tell us how many Canadian Citizens are immigrants, tell us what proportion of Canadian population is immigrant.
Christ on a bike.. did you actually manage to type that without your lips moving ? Its not complicated stuff, we should admit people to our country based on their value to the country, not based on where they are from or what colour their skin is. At the moment we disciminate against lots of nasty brown people and let in lots of nice white Europeans. More civilised countries like Canada and Australia admit people based on their skills, their ability to contribute and their lack of being a goddam security risk. We can make no such sensible decision, we have to admit EU scroungers, EU criminals and EU terrorists. Ask France how well the free movement of Labour did for their security last year.
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
Racists can go that way if they want, it only delays it by 3 years until the others get a EU passport from another country, but they might think that better than nothing. Also they have to be happy with taking white European scroungers, criminals and terrorists
There is no EU country which requires less than five years residence.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
I'm finding Mr Meeks postings on the EU tedious. The premise of the latest thread is intellectuals will vote to Remain
Come on guys, it's a different perspective. This site would be a lot less interesting if we all agreed on everything.
It's utter snobbery by antifrank. But you are right - it's interesting snobbery.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
I'm finding Mr Meeks postings on the EU tedious. The premise of the latest thread is intellectuals will vote to Remain
Come on guys, it's a different perspective. This site would be a lot less interesting if we all agreed on everything.
It is peculiar though, that someone who professes to be on the fence about a topic would post every single day disparaging one side of the argument, and those who are on that side, and never the other
Reminding me more and more of Matthew Parris actually, almost like he gets a thrill out of having rough types angry at him
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
I'm finding Mr Meeks postings on the EU tedious. The premise of the latest thread is intellectuals will vote to Remain
No. AM can look after himself but what he actually says is that campaigners need to tie the EU to more basic needs, nearer the bottom of the triangle. He notes the PM attempts this more widely: Security also sits in a very low tier. Small wonder then that David Cameron is seeking to make every aspect of government policy a choice for security.
Note also AM's theory explains why most Russian, Chinese or even Syrian citizens support their authoritarian governments. Most people do not want to overthrow the system but do want security, food and jobs. It might still be nonsense but it is worth considering.
..We already do get the worse deals check out the latest Disneyland Paris charges that were reviewed a few months ago. Pay more for flights and as for security being affected errr .....I don't think so it's in nones interests.
Commenting solely on us paying more for flights and/or Disneyland Paris, surely that's absolutely nothing to do with the EU.
Disney Corp will have a sophisticated model that looks at price elasticity by market, and will have discovered that the demand profile for the UK changes very little between (making up number here) £100/person and £110/person. As they are profit maximising, they will therefore choose to charge us £110. If the demand curve is steeper for France, and they lose more volume than they make up for in price, then they will charge £100.
I wouldn't be surprised if the pricing model was so sophisticated, that they had different pricing depending on the time of day you log on, whether you had the Expedia cookies on your browser, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand he might like to explain why it costs more for brits to book tickets for Disneyland Paris than booking them in France.
Errr... because the Disney computers have worked out that people booking in the UK are less price conscious than those in France.
must be the same people who did the analysis for Ryanair.
OK. We understand. You've told us seventy nine times. You somehow think "immigration" has nothing to do with "the EU" in the minds of voters, despite all evidence to the contrary. Now shut the fuck up and tell us something that doesn't insult the intelligence of your readers. Thanks.
Intelligence? Ha Ever heard of the commonwealth? Pakistan India? Your favourite country, China... where does it stand on our immigrant stakes. I suppose you will be happy with Canadian immigrants, but tell us how many Canadian Citizens are immigrants, tell us what proportion of Canadian population is immigrant.
Christ on a bike.. did you actually manage to type that without your lips moving ? Its not complicated stuff, we should admit people to our country based on their value to the country, not based on where they are from or what colour their skin is. At the moment we disciminate against lots of nasty brown people and let in lots of nice white Europeans. More civilised countries like Canada and Australia admit people based on their skills, their ability to contribute and their lack of being a goddam security risk. We can make no such sensible decision, we have to admit EU scroungers, EU criminals and EU terrorists. Ask France how well the free movement of Labour did for their security last year.
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
Racists can go that way if they want, it only delays it by 3 years until the others get a EU passport from another country, but they might think that better than nothing. Also they have to be happy with taking white European scroungers, criminals and terrorists
What mostly worries people is militant Islam. That would point to a ban on immigration from Pakistan, the Middle East, North Africa, Indonesia etc, not Poland.
Christ on a bike.. did you actually manage to type that without your lips moving ? Its not complicated stuff, we should admit people to our country based on their value to the country, not based on where they are from or what colour their skin is. At the moment we disciminate against lots of nasty brown people and let in lots of nice white Europeans. More civilised countries like Canada and Australia admit people based on their skills, their ability to contribute and their lack of being a goddam security risk. We can make no such sensible decision, we have to admit EU scroungers, EU criminals and EU terrorists. Ask France how well the free movement of Labour did for their security last year.
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
Racists can go that way if they want, it only delays it by 3 years until the others get a EU passport from another country, but they might think that better than nothing. Also they have to be happy with taking white European scroungers, criminals and terrorists
There is no EU country which requires less than five years residence.
Oh that's alright then
Incidentally, anything think those numbers might come under pressure, especially in countries like Germany keep to offload their immigrant idiocyproblems onto other countries.
There is no EU country which requires less than five years residence.
I am glad someone has repeated this again. We keep seeing numbers bandied around particularly in relation to Germany with 3-5 years being the norm. In fact it is 8 years before a migrant can obtain German citizenship and therefore be able to travel to the UK. True it is only 5 years before they can get what is effectively EU citizenship but the UK has a specific exclusion from that so whilst they could move around the rest of the EU they would not be able to come here until 8 years is up.
That said I will repeat what I have said before on the subject of migration which is that we do have an inherently racist migration policy as part of the EU which says that an unemployed Frenchman or Italian with nothing to offer the country should have more rights to settle in the UK than a highly qualified and educated Indian, African or South American (for example).
Of course it is not explicit racism but the net effect is much the same. Lots of white European migration whilst limiting non white non European migration irrespective of qualifications or what they have to offer the UK.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
I'm finding Mr Meeks postings on the EU tedious. The premise of the latest thread is intellectuals will vote to Remain
Come on guys, it's a different perspective. This site would be a lot less interesting if we all agreed on everything.
It is peculiar though, that someone who professes to be on the fence about a topic would post every single day disparaging one side of the argument, and those who are on that side, and never the other
Reminding me more and more of Matthew Parris actually, almost like he gets a thrill out of having rough types angry at him
To be fair I am not sure that Alistair in any of his incarnations has ever professed to be anything other than pro EU has he?
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
Racists can go that way if they want, it only delays it by 3 years until the others get a EU passport from another country, but they might think that better than nothing. Also they have to be happy with taking white European scroungers, criminals and terrorists
What mostly worries people is militant Islam. That would point to a ban on immigration from Pakistan, the Middle East, North Africa, Indonesia etc, not Poland.
Don't have a ban from anywhere, look at people's qualifications, language skills, ability to get a job, number of years until retirement and other factors that will relate to their utility to the country ("an Australian/Canadian style points system"), then vet them to see if they are likely to be a security risk, then issue a visa. Don't issue any visas to anyone that hasn't applied through an embassy or consulate in the lawful manner. Otherwise you are discriminating on country of origin, and ability to jump the queue, not ability to fit in, be useful and not blow stuff up, and doubly discriminating against people making lawful applications and embassies and getting pushed down the queue by people breaking the rules.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
I'm finding Mr Meeks postings on the EU tedious. The premise of the latest thread is intellectuals will vote to Remain
Come on guys, it's a different perspective. This site would be a lot less interesting if we all agreed on everything.
It is peculiar though, that someone who professes to be on the fence about a topic would post every single day disparaging one side of the argument, and those who are on that side, and never the other
Reminding me more and more of Matthew Parris actually, almost like he gets a thrill out of having rough types angry at him
To be fair I am not sure that Alistair in any of his incarnations has ever professed to be anything other than pro EU has he?
He says he doesn't know whether he will vote to LEAVE or REMAIN.. Id suggest if he re read his posts on the matter he would know where his heart lay
Although I'm for leave, part of me thinks that if we remain it would be better to go 'all in' and sign up for the Euro, rather than being in permanent minority subject to the majority's decisions. It would also be a good insurance policy against a spendthrift Labour government.
The emails from the officer of the National Union of Students were unequivocal. Fran Cowling, the union’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) representative, said that she would not share a stage with a man whom she regarded as having been racist and “transphobic”.
That the man in question is Peter Tatchell – one of the country’s best-known gay rights campaigners, who next year celebrates his 50th year as an activist – is perhaps a mark of how fractured the debate on free speech and sexual politics has become.
Oh my... The world truly eats itself. This is even better than Germaine Greer being uninvited because she was reactionary and didnt understand gender issues. GERMAINE GREER!!!
Seems there's a young generation who think they've invented sexual politics - and don't like being reminded it's been around for ever.
The emails from the officer of the National Union of Students were unequivocal. Fran Cowling, the union’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) representative, said that she would not share a stage with a man whom she regarded as having been racist and “transphobic”.
That the man in question is Peter Tatchell – one of the country’s best-known gay rights campaigners, who next year celebrates his 50th year as an activist – is perhaps a mark of how fractured the debate on free speech and sexual politics has become.
I wonder if what we need for this is a de-nationalisation of Universities?
Although I'm for leave, part of me thinks that if we remain it would be better to go 'all in' and sign up for the Euro, rather than being in permanent minority subject to the majority's decisions. It would also be a good insurance policy against a spendthrift Labour government.
Afternoon all,
Have to disagree on this one. The Euro is an economic disaster.
There is no EU country which requires less than five years residence.
I am glad someone has repeated this again. We keep seeing numbers bandied around particularly in relation to Germany with 3-5 years being the norm. In fact it is 8 years before a migrant can obtain German citizenship and therefore be able to travel to the UK. True it is only 5 years before they can get what is effectively EU citizenship but the UK has a specific exclusion from that so whilst they could move around the rest of the EU they would not be able to come here until 8 years is up.
That said I will repeat what I have said before on the subject of migration which is that we do have an inherently racist migration policy as part of the EU which says that an unemployed Frenchman or Italian with nothing to offer the country should have more rights to settle in the UK than a highly qualified and educated Indian, African or South American (for example).
Of course it is not explicit racism but the net effect is much the same. Lots of white European migration whilst limiting non white non European migration irrespective of qualifications or what they have to offer the UK.
I don't think those motivated by stopping the German migrants coming here will care whether that is after 5 or 8 years.
I did get into flack on here when i suggested the use of 'Briton' is not a word describes someones citizenship, but is a specific ethnocultural identity that refers to a specific group of people who are descended from the natives of this country. And using it as a blanket to describe anyone who has a british passport, would not have been acceptable in other circumstances.
I also find it strange when so often "Muslims" are lumped together as a description of a particular ethnicity, including by Muslims themselves. Not only obviously there are many strands of the Muslim faith, but in terms of ethnicity, your black West African Muslim is ethnically totally different from your White "convert" (again a term always used when talking about White Muslims).
Islam is a faith, not a "race".
Because there isn''t such a thing as "Faithism" but there is "Racism" And Because Jews.
Islamophobia? I believe the definition of which is anybody who thinks that some interpretations of the Koran don't fit very well with modern western values.
There is no EU country which requires less than five years residence.
I am glad someone has repeated this again. We keep seeing numbers bandied around particularly in relation to Germany with 3-5 years being the norm. In fact it is 8 years before a migrant can obtain German citizenship and therefore be able to travel to the UK. True it is only 5 years before they can get what is effectively EU citizenship but the UK has a specific exclusion from that so whilst they could move around the rest of the EU they would not be able to come here until 8 years is up.
That said I will repeat what I have said before on the subject of migration which is that we do have an inherently racist migration policy as part of the EU which says that an unemployed Frenchman or Italian with nothing to offer the country should have more rights to settle in the UK than a highly qualified and educated Indian, African or South American (for example).
Of course it is not explicit racism but the net effect is much the same. Lots of white European migration whilst limiting non white non European migration irrespective of qualifications or what they have to offer the UK.
I don't think those motivated by stopping the German migrants coming here will care whether that is after 5 or 8 years.
The actual point Robert had referred to claimed it was 3 years. I would suggest that the difference between 3 years and 8 years is considerable when it comes to uprooting and moving to another country. I would think that someone having been resident in a country for 3 years is vastly more likely to up sticks and move elsewhere compared to someone who has been resident for 8 years. As such I think this would have a very significant impact on the numbers of migrants who, after 8 years, would decide to move from Germany to the UK
I await the polling with extreme interest after this GOP debate:
Trump trashed George W Bush on Iraq, but this wasn't at a left wing protest rally. This was pitching to the republican party who are still in favour of the invasion and hold W up as a great ex-pres.
Actually that is not correct. For example a June 2014 CBS poll asked '"Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American lives and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"
63% of Republicans thought it was not worth it, only 27% thought it was worth it. That was not that much higher than the 18% of Americans as a whole who thought the Iraq War was worth it http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Although I'm for leave, part of me thinks that if we remain it would be better to go 'all in' and sign up for the Euro, rather than being in permanent minority subject to the majority's decisions. It would also be a good insurance policy against a spendthrift Labour government.
Afternoon all,
Have to disagree on this one. The Euro is an economic disaster.
It hasn't been a disaster for Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Slovakia or the Baltic countries. What is has done is prevent the over regulated Mediterranean countries from falling back on devaluation and inflation; instead; they are being force to reform.
It's probably better in the long run, but rather painful in the short term.
There is no EU country which requires less than five years residence.
I am glad someone has repeated this again. We keep seeing numbers bandied around particularly in relation to Germany with 3-5 years being the norm. In fact it is 8 years before a migrant can obtain German citizenship and therefore be able to travel to the UK. True it is only 5 years before they can get what is effectively EU citizenship but the UK has a specific exclusion from that so whilst they could move around the rest of the EU they would not be able to come here until 8 years is up.
That said I will repeat what I have said before on the subject of migration which is that we do have an inherently racist migration policy as part of the EU which says that an unemployed Frenchman or Italian with nothing to offer the country should have more rights to settle in the UK than a highly qualified and educated Indian, African or South American (for example).
Of course it is not explicit racism but the net effect is much the same. Lots of white European migration whilst limiting non white non European migration irrespective of qualifications or what they have to offer the UK.
I don't think those motivated by stopping the German migrants coming here will care whether that is after 5 or 8 years.
The actual point Robert had referred to claimed it was 3 years. I would suggest that the difference between 3 years and 8 years is considerable when it comes to uprooting and moving to another country. I would think that someone having been resident in a country for 3 years is vastly more likely to up sticks and move elsewhere compared to someone who has been resident for 8 years. As such I think this would have a very significant impact on the numbers of migrants who, after 8 years, would decide to move from Germany to the UK
Especially if English is your second language and by Germany's most optimistic estimates only a small percentage of recent migrants will be employed by then (and those will be the most skilled / educated).
Well quite. Do they know why Stonewall is called Stonewall?
In the late 1960s, when few establishments welcomed gays and lesbians and repressive laws made it impossible for a gay bar to obtain a liquor license, police raids on gay and lesbian clubs were routine.
At about 1:20 a.m. on June 28, 1969, the Stonewall Inn was raided as part of a crackdown on New York City gay clubs. Instead of leaving the premises, the patrons of the bar remained waiting in front of the club where they were joined by friends and passersby, mostly members of the LGBT community.
Should people who prefer white European immigration vote to stay in then?
Racists can go that way if they want, it only delays it by 3 years until the others get a EU passport from another country, but they might think that better than nothing. Also they have to be happy with taking white European scroungers, criminals and terrorists
What mostly worries people is militant Islam. That would point to a ban on immigration from Pakistan, the Middle East, North Africa, Indonesia etc, not Poland.
Don't have a ban from anywhere, look at people's qualifications, language skills, ability to get a job, number of years until retirement and other factors that will relate to their utility to the country ("an Australian/Canadian style points system"), then vet them to see if they are likely to be a security risk, then issue a visa. Don't issue any visas to anyone that hasn't applied through an embassy or consulate in the lawful manner. Otherwise you are discriminating on country of origin, and ability to jump the queue, not ability to fit in, be useful and not blow stuff up, and doubly discriminating against people making lawful applications and embassies and getting pushed down the queue by people breaking the rules.
I'm not in favour of any kind of ban, just to clarify.
I think your policy is rational but wouldn't do much to address people's fears about immigration (some of which may be racist, but real nonetheless). A lot of this is to do with anxiety over cultural dilution and, to some extent, physical security.
Although I'm for leave, part of me thinks that if we remain it would be better to go 'all in' and sign up for the Euro, rather than being in permanent minority subject to the majority's decisions. It would also be a good insurance policy against a spendthrift Labour government.
Totally and 100% disagreed.
I'm for remain and would never ever dream of suggesting we join the Euro. Furthermore we'd no less be in a minority if we were in than out, that was the delusion of Blair - that if we agree to everything everyone else wants then we'll be leading. No we'll just be rolling over. The Euro is not homogenous and won't be in 20 years, or likely 200 years if it survives that long so we are not in a permanent minority.
AN extremist recruiter dubbed Osama bin London should have been freed from prison before serving his minimum term, according to a John McDonnell-backed group.
The Labour Representation Committee, chaired by hard-left McDonnell, passed a motion for dangerous Mohammed Hamid to be set free.
The now Shadow Chancellor attended the conference along with current party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the Socialist Fight magazine reported.
'Although I'm for leave, part of me thinks that if we remain it would be better to go 'all in' and sign up for the Euro, rather than being in permanent minority subject to the majority's decisions. It would also be a good insurance policy against a spendthrift Labour government.'
An early rehearsal of the arguments Europhiles, the foreign office and the other usual suspects will indeed be using if they win the referendum.
It depends on your previous behaviour. If you are a consummate shopper-around, it will lower it. (Or more likely, flash up a "limited time only" offer.)
If, on the other hand, you've paid full price in the past, they might bump the price up and carry a "Hurry! Only x rooms left at this price point" message.
Amazon charges you different prices for their own goods, depending on whether you regularly look at other sellers, and choose the cheapest. If you appear cost conscious to their systems, and they worry about losing you to other vendors, you'll get a lower price.
That is very interesting, Mr. Robert, thank you. Once upon a time businesses went out of there way to retain customers by offering long-standing ones the best deals (easier to retain a customer than get a new one and all that) but now it would seem those who stay loyal get screwed over, but sophisticated algorithms. I am sure it all makes sense to someone - probably a consultant who charges a couple or three thousand pounds a day.
I think I shall test out your advice this year in all my dealings. I shall start with my bank. I have been with Lloyds ever since I left school and opened my first account and, to be fair, we have rubbed along pretty well through good times and bad (only had one row - 30 years ago when for 24 hours I went 70p below the balance that entitled me to free banking and they tried to charge me for a full quarter's transactions). So next month I'll tell them that I think I'll move my accounts (all in credit don't owe them a penny) elsewhere and see what they say. I'll follow that up with the Gas, Electric Providers and Telephone providers (never switched any of them), travel agents and get herself to switch her grocery shopping habits (save for Waitrose for the cat's stuff - for somethings money is just not the priority) and stop buying from Amazon. It will be an interesting experiment.
Birmingham terrorist Rabah Tahari inadvertently disclosed his whereabouts by joining the Linkedin professional networking site
Rabah Tahari, from Birmingham, is the leader of a jihadist group linked to al-Qaeda who the Home Office claim founded a terrorist militia in Syria four years ago which recruited many British fighters.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
AN extremist recruiter dubbed Osama bin London should have been freed from prison before serving his minimum term, according to a John McDonnell-backed group.
The Labour Representation Committee, chaired by hard-left McDonnell, passed a motion for dangerous Mohammed Hamid to be set free.
The now Shadow Chancellor attended the conference along with current party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the Socialist Fight magazine reported.
There is no EU country which requires less than five years residence.
I am glad someone has repeated this again. We keep seeing numbers bandied around particularly in relation to Germany with 3-5 years being the norm. In fact it is 8 years before a migrant can obtain German citizenship and therefore be able to travel to the UK. True it is only 5 years before they can get what is effectively EU citizenship but the UK has a specific exclusion from that so whilst they could move around the rest of the EU they would not be able to come here until 8 years is up.
That said I will repeat what I have said before on the subject of migration which is that we do have an inherently racist migration policy as part of the EU which says that an unemployed Frenchman or Italian with nothing to offer the country should have more rights to settle in the UK than a highly qualified and educated Indian, African or South American (for example).
Of course it is not explicit racism but the net effect is much the same. Lots of white European migration whilst limiting non white non European migration irrespective of qualifications or what they have to offer the UK.
So what? Is that a bad thing? Or unique to the EU?
It is rather easier to get into Australia or the USA or Canada as someone from England than it is someone from Africa. Not impossible or guaranteed on either side but easier. Similarly of course any Scot who wants to move to England can and vice-versa.
I'm quite in favour of reciprocal deals for free movement within reason and would be OK with expanding these beyond the EU to nations like Australia, the USA, Canada and New Zealand if we could negotiate reciprocal deals with them. There is more than just race involved, Europeans and those other nations I mentioned have other issues like a similar economy, education etc and many other non-racial issues that is missing in Africa.
EDIT: Furthermore that unemployed Italian and French person are likely to be more educated etc and so long as its a right to move for work not benefits then if the Italian or French person comes here and gets a job and pays taxes without claiming benefits then that's OK with me and means they don't have "nothing to offer the country". If they're coming here for welfare then that's not OK but that can and should be prevented.
AN extremist recruiter dubbed Osama bin London should have been freed from prison before serving his minimum term, according to a John McDonnell-backed group.
The Labour Representation Committee, chaired by hard-left McDonnell, passed a motion for dangerous Mohammed Hamid to be set free.
The now Shadow Chancellor attended the conference along with current party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the Socialist Fight magazine reported.
Once a terrorist sympathiser, always a terrorist sympathiser...
This just confirms what the PM said - no wonder it struck a nerve.
There are no circumstances I can think of in which someone like Corbyn and McDonnell will become PM and Chancellor. Its not that opinions the push the edge of the left right spectrum are entirely unacceptable, many things they say will have resonance. Its not that, its this ugly stuff that they have previous on.
It doesn't matter how much the government mess up on pretty much everything, these two will never get charge. Something that the Corbynistas should reflect on.
It depends on your previous behaviour. If you are a consummate shopper-around, it will lower it. (Or more likely, flash up a "limited time only" offer.)
If, on the other hand, you've paid full price in the past, they might bump the price up and carry a "Hurry! Only x rooms left at this price point" message.
Amazon charges you different prices for their own goods, depending on whether you regularly look at other sellers, and choose the cheapest. If you appear cost conscious to their systems, and they worry about losing you to other vendors, you'll get a lower price.
That is very interesting, Mr. Robert, thank you. Once upon a time businesses went out of there way to retain customers by offering long-standing ones the best deals (easier to retain a customer than get a new one and all that) but now it would seem those who stay loyal get screwed over, but sophisticated algorithms. I am sure it all makes sense to someone - probably a consultant who charges a couple or three thousand pounds a day.
I think I shall test out your advice this year in all my dealings. I shall start with my bank. I have been with Lloyds ever since I left school and opened my first account and, to be fair, we have rubbed along pretty well through good times and bad (only had one row - 30 years ago when for 24 hours I went 70p below the balance that entitled me to free banking and they tried to charge me for a full quarter's transactions). So next month I'll tell them that I think I'll move my accounts (all in credit don't owe them a penny) elsewhere and see what they say. I'll follow that up with the Gas, Electric Providers and Telephone providers (never switched any of them), travel agents and get herself to switch her grocery shopping habits (save for Waitrose for the cat's stuff - for somethings money is just not the priority) and stop buying from Amazon. It will be an interesting experiment.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
Links? If those are facts you won't expect people to rely on your say-so.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
I read it as AlastairMeeks is saying ultimately precisely that, you need to get the message across in the way people not just understand but care about. "Vote Leave because Westminster will regain control over the 65% of our laws that originate in Brussels" is abstact and trumped by "Vote Remain because jobs". Whether the claims are true or not is moot, the jobs argument will trump an abstract one any day.
You need to say "Vote Leave because security", "Vote Leave because jobs" etc and get the message across that way.
AN extremist recruiter dubbed Osama bin London should have been freed from prison before serving his minimum term, according to a John McDonnell-backed group.
The Labour Representation Committee, chaired by hard-left McDonnell, passed a motion for dangerous Mohammed Hamid to be set free.
The now Shadow Chancellor attended the conference along with current party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the Socialist Fight magazine reported.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
Actually no, its easier to just scroll past You don't tell us anything Cameron hasn't already lied aboutsaid anyway.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You never read it, you've no idea what it's saying, but you do know it's a hateful rag.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You never read it, you've no idea what it's saying, but you do know it's a hateful rag.
I see.
dammit, why's there never a like button when you need one ? :-)
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
How do you think that something that people don't know is going to be at all relevant to people's current deliberations (even taking your unshakable belief as fact for the purposes of argument)?
You live and breathe the iniquities of the European Union. But most voters just aren't that into EU.
I have taken care in this article to make the piece EU-neutral. It is very telling indeed how it is the Leavers are foaming with outrage at it. What's visceral for them just isn't for most people.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
I read it as AlastairMeeks is saying ultimately precisely that, you need to get the message across in the way people not just understand but care about. "Vote Leave because Westminster will regain control over the 65% of our laws that originate in Brussels" is abstact and trumped by "Vote Remain because jobs". Whether the claims are true or not is moot, the jobs argument will trump an abstract one any day.
You need to say "Vote Leave because security", "Vote Leave because jobs" etc and get the message across that way.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
How do you think that something that people don't know is going to be at all relevant to people's current deliberations (even taking your unshakable belief as fact for the purposes of argument)?
You live and breathe the iniquities of the European Union. But most voters just aren't that into EU.
I have taken care in this article to make the piece EU-neutral. It is very telling indeed how it is the Leavers are foaming with outrage at it. What's visceral for them just isn't for most people.
Personally I think heating should have full VAT on it, partly as an incentive to develop decently insulated homes.
It depends on your previous behaviour. If you are a consummate shopper-around, it will lower it. (Or more likely, flash up a "limited time only" offer.)
If, on the other hand, you've paid full price in the past, they might bump the price up and carry a "Hurry! Only x rooms left at this price point" message.
Amazon charges you different prices for their own goods, depending on whether you regularly look at other sellers, and choose the cheapest. If you appear cost conscious to their systems, and they worry about losing you to other vendors, you'll get a lower price.
That is very interesting, Mr. Robert, thank you. Once upon a time businesses went out of there way to retain customers by offering long-standing ones the best deals (easier to retain a customer than get a new one and all that) but now it would seem those who stay loyal get screwed over, but sophisticated algorithms. I am sure it all makes sense to someone - probably a consultant who charges a couple or three thousand pounds a day.
I think I shall test out your advice this year in all my dealings. I shall start with my bank. I have been with Lloyds ever since I left school and opened my first account and, to be fair, we have rubbed along pretty well through good times and bad (only had one row - 30 years ago when for 24 hours I went 70p below the balance that entitled me to free banking and they tried to charge me for a full quarter's transactions). So next month I'll tell them that I think I'll move my accounts (all in credit don't owe them a penny) elsewhere and see what they say. I'll follow that up with the Gas, Electric Providers and Telephone providers (never switched any of them), travel agents and get herself to switch her grocery shopping habits (save for Waitrose for the cat's stuff - for somethings money is just not the priority) and stop buying from Amazon. It will be an interesting experiment.
Many thanks for that idea and that link, Mr. Richard.
I think there is a genuine issue here for the elderly, amongst whom I now count myself. The world has turned and those who expected loyalty would have its rewards are now being screwed over.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You never read it, you've no idea what it's saying, but you do know it's a hateful rag.
I see.
You are just like the Daily Mail, partial quoting, taking things out of context,....
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You never read it, you've no idea what it's saying, but you do know it's a hateful rag.
I see.
Well it's front pages frequently are. Beyond that I wouldn't know, I far prefer the Telegraph or Times but you don't need to read the paper to know what its headline on the front page is.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You're the one writing 'Daily Heil' , 'loon', 'loony', 'Daily Jackboot' and 'Jackboot' at 9am on a Sunday morning:
'I am sure the Daily Heil knows how to take and report comments out of context. In any event when you have a loon like Bill Cash giving you grief, its no surprise that someone might get a bit pissed off. As for the Jackboot comments, the point remains valid.'
'The comments can be ignored because the article , like any from the Daily Jackboot are designed to get the white folks angry.. Their articles are littered with words like, fury, anger and outrage, whilst never identifying who was angry , furious or outraged , and then leave it to the loony comments.. '
Now who's the person who looks like Mr Angry ?
I'll let you think about that as I have some family things to attend to.
A happy St Valentine's Day to all. Judging by some of the emotional responses, there are a few Tier 4 operators with rustled jimjams this morning. Apologies for that.
Many of the attempted refutations merely make my point for me. Some of the more committed Leavers should dig deep to admit that their concern about the EU is not immigration, food prices or vehicle emissions, but the EU itself. That's fine: but that is a luxury available only to the comfortably off.
So your only response to the fact that your article is misleading and factually inaccurate is to say that those pointing this out are making an emotional response. You really are beyond parody sometimes.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
In your mind there is a direct connection between these things. In most voters' minds, there isn't. Try talking to them and you'd find that out for yourself.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is nothing to do with minds. It is a fact. You and I and everyone else in Britain pays 5% more for their heating than they should because of the EU. We all pay far more than we should for our food because of the EU and we pay more for insurance because of the EU.
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
How do you think that something that people don't know is going to be at all relevant to people's current deliberations (even taking your unshakable belief as fact for the purposes of argument)?
You live and breathe the iniquities of the European Union. But most voters just aren't that into EU.
I have taken care in this article to make the piece EU-neutral. It is very telling indeed how it is the Leavers are foaming with outrage at it. What's visceral for them just isn't for most people.
I suppose its the same as your Londoncentric view that voters in the rest of the country ought to think like you do.
If as you say most people don't give a hoot then odds are they won't amble down to the polling station. Only the fanatics on both sides will bother. Who has the more committed voters: young metroplitans who live off twitter or old grumpies who read the Daily Mail ?
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You never read it, you've no idea what it's saying, but you do know it's a hateful rag.
How do you think that something that people don't know is going to be at all relevant to people's current deliberations (even taking your unshakable belief as fact for the purposes of argument)?
You live and breathe the iniquities of the European Union. But most voters just aren't that into EU.
I have taken care in this article to make the piece EU-neutral. It is very telling indeed how it is the Leavers are foaming with outrage at it. What's visceral for them just isn't for most people.
I suppose its the same as your Londoncentric view that voters in the rest of the country ought to think like you do.
If as you say most people don't give a hoot then odds are they won't amble down to the polling station. Only the fanatics on both sides will bother. Who has the more committed voters: young metroplitans who live off twitter or old grumpies who read the Daily Mail ?
Unless one side successfully promotes their side as being better for jobs/security etc
Not everyone may not amble down to the polling station for abstract concerns but many more do for those concerns.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You never read it, you've no idea what it's saying, but you do know it's a hateful rag.
I see.
You are just like the Daily Mail, partial quoting, taking things out of context,....
In practice, from a little personal research on behalf on non-EU wife, civil servants in places like Bucharest and Sofia - who might earn $400 a month - don't necessarily subscribe to the same level of probity and honesty as might be expected in the UK or Germany.
How do you think that something that people don't know is going to be at all relevant to people's current deliberations (even taking your unshakable belief as fact for the purposes of argument)?
You live and breathe the iniquities of the European Union. But most voters just aren't that into EU.
I have taken care in this article to make the piece EU-neutral. It is very telling indeed how it is the Leavers are foaming with outrage at it. What's visceral for them just isn't for most people.
I suppose its the same as your Londoncentric view that voters in the rest of the country ought to think like you do.
If as you say most people don't give a hoot then odds are they won't amble down to the polling station. Only the fanatics on both sides will bother. Who has the more committed voters: young metroplitans who live off twitter or old grumpies who read the Daily Mail ?
Unless one side successfully promotes their side as being better for jobs/security etc
Not everyone may not amble down to the polling station for abstract concerns but many more do for those concerns.
You can make arguments for both sides on employment.
Remain wishes to big up on trading and investment.
Leave can major on improve your earning power and job security by slowing immigration.
Racism and prejudice are innate and instinctive, not learned. They are evolved responses to perceived outgroup threats. So you can't really blame people being bigots, they are doing what comes naturally.
I can't see how it's hypocrisy to agree with what a newspaper has to say about Corbyn and Ed Miliband, while objecting to it publishing cartoons that suggests immigrants are rats.
The Mail uses the same aggressive manner against all of its targets.
People who purport to be appalled by its 'hateful way' but who keep quiet when that same 'hateful way' benefits their side are among the worst sort of hypocrites.
And we all know that if the Mail was pushing a pro-Cameron line SquareRoot would be happily cheering them on.
Are your piles giving you a bit of gip this morning?
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You never read it, you've no idea what it's saying, but you do know it's a hateful rag.
I see.
dammit, why's there never a like button when you need one ? :-)
Huzzah! Mr. Brooke hits the nail firmly on the head yet again. In a well governed England there would be two equal factions in the Privy Council; one headed up by Mr. AlanBrooke and one by Mr. SouthamObserver. When they couldn't agree a compromise the Monarch would choose the policy that would be implemented.
And now it is lunchtime, so I must be away so thanks all for lots of interesting chat today. Play nicely.
Comments
Nice
i.e.
London -> Paris (EU return)
Paris -> London -> New York (US return)
New York -> London (US return)
You can then use or abandon the remaining 2 segments depending on whether you need the airmiles or not
Works like a charm... except the time my Chicago -> London flight was delayed and American kept trying to switch me to a Chicago -> Paris flight to be helpful
Spot on....which was my entire point on this latest piece of scaremongering or as Charles describes it up thread much more eloquently than I.
If she'd booked a flight from Frankfurt to Johannesburg direct, she'd have probably paid twice as much, maybe more.
The EU costs us money as individuals by making many essentials more expensive. That is a fact - one of course that you are desperate to deny but a fact none the less and one that puts the lie to pretty much the whole of your article.
The same happened when here in the UK to book flights to the States and a hotel. I got a friend in the USA to book a hotel and flight for me using their US address. It was then much cheaper for both. Doubt you could do that now of course with security etc.
I suppose the question is, if we hadn't joined in the 70s when would we have done? Late 90s maybe? Never is a possible answer of course.
But you are right - it's interesting snobbery.
See: https://www.quora.com/What-EU-country-has-the-easiest-citizenship-requirements
Reminding me more and more of Matthew Parris actually, almost like he gets a thrill out of having rough types angry at him
Note also AM's theory explains why most Russian, Chinese or even Syrian citizens support their authoritarian governments. Most people do not want to overthrow the system but do want security, food and jobs. It might still be nonsense but it is worth considering.
or it could be we're just getting ripped off.
Incidentally, anything think those numbers might come under pressure, especially in countries like Germany keep to offload their immigrant idiocyproblems onto other countries.
That said I will repeat what I have said before on the subject of migration which is that we do have an inherently racist migration policy as part of the EU which says that an unemployed Frenchman or Italian with nothing to offer the country should have more rights to settle in the UK than a highly qualified and educated Indian, African or South American (for example).
Of course it is not explicit racism but the net effect is much the same. Lots of white European migration whilst limiting non white non European migration irrespective of qualifications or what they have to offer the UK.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/credit-suisse-thinks-that-britain-will-join-the-euro-within-20-years-if-it-votes-to-stay-in-the-eu-2015-6
Although I'm for leave, part of me thinks that if we remain it would be better to go 'all in' and sign up for the Euro, rather than being in permanent minority subject to the majority's decisions. It would also be a good insurance policy against a spendthrift Labour government.
Dare we dream?
Have to disagree on this one. The Euro is an economic disaster.
63% of Republicans thought it was not worth it, only 27% thought it was worth it. That was not that much higher than the 18% of Americans as a whole who thought the Iraq War was worth it
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
It's probably better in the long run, but rather painful in the short term.
Arsenal look ready to crumble. 4 on yellows too...
Greenwich Village http://abc7ny.com/news/greenwich-villages-stonewall-inn-designated-as-new-york-city-landmark/800796/
I think your policy is rational but wouldn't do much to address people's fears about immigration (some of which may be racist, but real nonetheless). A lot of this is to do with anxiety over cultural dilution and, to some extent, physical security.
I'm for remain and would never ever dream of suggesting we join the Euro. Furthermore we'd no less be in a minority if we were in than out, that was the delusion of Blair - that if we agree to everything everyone else wants then we'll be leading. No we'll just be rolling over. The Euro is not homogenous and won't be in 20 years, or likely 200 years if it survives that long so we are not in a permanent minority.
The Labour Representation Committee, chaired by hard-left McDonnell, passed a motion for dangerous Mohammed Hamid to be set free.
The now Shadow Chancellor attended the conference along with current party leader Jeremy Corbyn, the Socialist Fight magazine reported.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6930212/Labour-calls-to-release-terrorist-recruiter-from-behind-bars.html
Once a terrorist sympathiser, always a terrorist sympathiser...
An early rehearsal of the arguments Europhiles, the foreign office and the other usual suspects will indeed be using if they win the referendum.
I think I shall test out your advice this year in all my dealings. I shall start with my bank. I have been with Lloyds ever since I left school and opened my first account and, to be fair, we have rubbed along pretty well through good times and bad (only had one row - 30 years ago when for 24 hours I went 70p below the balance that entitled me to free banking and they tried to charge me for a full quarter's transactions). So next month I'll tell them that I think I'll move my accounts (all in credit don't owe them a penny) elsewhere and see what they say. I'll follow that up with the Gas, Electric Providers and Telephone providers (never switched any of them), travel agents and get herself to switch her grocery shopping habits (save for Waitrose for the cat's stuff - for somethings money is just not the priority) and stop buying from Amazon. It will be an interesting experiment.
Rabah Tahari, from Birmingham, is the leader of a jihadist group linked to al-Qaeda who the Home Office claim founded a terrorist militia in Syria four years ago which recruited many British fighters.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12156130/Security-services-hunt-Jihadi-John-recruiter-after-he-revealed-his-location-on-LinkedIn.html
Be interested what he put in for current and previous employment section.
Created dynamic start-up and managed small team of enthusiastic individuals.
Expert in online marketing via major social networks.
If you think that's an unarguable vote-changing fact, I suggest you make that a campaign theme.
It is rather easier to get into Australia or the USA or Canada as someone from England than it is someone from Africa. Not impossible or guaranteed on either side but easier. Similarly of course any Scot who wants to move to England can and vice-versa.
I'm quite in favour of reciprocal deals for free movement within reason and would be OK with expanding these beyond the EU to nations like Australia, the USA, Canada and New Zealand if we could negotiate reciprocal deals with them. There is more than just race involved, Europeans and those other nations I mentioned have other issues like a similar economy, education etc and many other non-racial issues that is missing in Africa.
EDIT: Furthermore that unemployed Italian and French person are likely to be more educated etc and so long as its a right to move for work not benefits then if the Italian or French person comes here and gets a job and pays taxes without claiming benefits then that's OK with me and means they don't have "nothing to offer the country". If they're coming here for welfare then that's not OK but that can and should be prevented.
It doesn't matter how much the government mess up on pretty much everything, these two will never get charge. Something that the Corbynistas should reflect on.
Car insurance from A
Home insurance from B
Year 2
Car insurance from B
Home insurance from A
Year 3
Car Insurance from A
Home insurance from B
This sort of website can also be very useful:
http://www.quidco.com/
You are right that as Eurosceptics we need to get that message across. It would help if Europhiles like yourself were actually honest and stopped trying to pretend these are just opinions and therefore of no value.
We can't leave because then other people might want to.... its a view I suppose.
I would have no idea what the Daily Mail says about anything if wasn't for things posted on here. ITs a hateful rag pandering to peoples worst prejudices.. I don't read it nor would buy it.
However if my posting is upsetting you then that's excellent.
You need to say "Vote Leave because security", "Vote Leave because jobs" etc and get the message across that way.
I see.
You live and breathe the iniquities of the European Union. But most voters just aren't that into EU.
I have taken care in this article to make the piece EU-neutral. It is very telling indeed how it is the Leavers are foaming with outrage at it. What's visceral for them just isn't for most people.
I think there is a genuine issue here for the elderly, amongst whom I now count myself. The world has turned and those who expected loyalty would have its rewards are now being screwed over.
You're the one writing 'Daily Heil' , 'loon', 'loony', 'Daily Jackboot' and 'Jackboot' at 9am on a Sunday morning:
'I am sure the Daily Heil knows how to take and report comments out of context. In any event when you have a loon like Bill Cash giving you grief, its no surprise that someone might get a bit pissed off. As for the Jackboot comments, the point remains valid.'
'The comments can be ignored because the article , like any from the Daily Jackboot are designed to get the white folks angry.. Their articles are littered with words like, fury, anger and outrage, whilst never identifying who was angry , furious or outraged , and then leave it to the loony comments.. '
Now who's the person who looks like Mr Angry ?
I'll let you think about that as I have some family things to attend to.
If as you say most people don't give a hoot then odds are they won't amble down to the polling station. Only the fanatics on both sides will bother. Who has the more committed voters: young metroplitans who live off twitter or old grumpies who read the Daily Mail ?
Not everyone may not amble down to the polling station for abstract concerns but many more do for those concerns.
Nitwit, I'll scroll by yours in future.
In practice, from a little personal research on behalf on non-EU wife, civil servants in places like Bucharest and Sofia - who might earn $400 a month - don't necessarily subscribe to the same level of probity and honesty as might be expected in the UK or Germany.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35571438
Remain wishes to big up on trading and investment.
Leave can major on improve your earning power and job security by slowing immigration.
Authoritarian Left are the same, it's a crossover point question.
Tatchell isn't the correct form of Lefty gay anymore.
And now it is lunchtime, so I must be away so thanks all for lots of interesting chat today. Play nicely.