politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the immigration debate moves centre stage the minister i
Comments
-
Scotland and England did it just to frustrate me.Pulpstar said:21-30 points pipped by a nose.
With a 40/1 winner already today, I'm not complaining.
But Scotland got nil'd.
I remember how upset and embarrassed I was when we were nil'd in the 2007 RWC by the Saffers.
0 -
So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?0
-
Of course but the terms of the debate on both the EU and Scottish Independence seem dominated by the "costs" which are quantifiable and the "benefits" or "value" which often aren't.Charles said:
How else are you going to rigorously assess whether something is in the UK's national interest if not a cost-benefit analysis?stodge said:Evening all
I'm puzzled as to why the "cost" of being in something should be the rationale for whether we join it or not. I suspect being in the UN "costs" and I also suspect being in NATO "costs" as well.
If you start from a hostile position then an analysis based simply on accounting can usually support your position but if our future international relations are going to be based on knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing - well, that will be a strange way of doing things.
The question is less how much does it cost to be in the EU, UN or NATO but rather what value do we get from being a member of these organisations (and others ?).
The same argument can be used when discussing international aid as well.
Naturally this includes more than just financial costs, but I would assume there are formulae that are accepted to calculate the value of these intangibles (e.g. I believe the value of a human life in traffic safety measures is set at £1 million)
Those arguing a position based on benefit as distinct from those arguing on a basis of cost are often at a disadvantage but that doesn't make them wrong.
0 -
Just like all those multi-nationals who swore they would leave if we didn't join the Euro ...murali_s said:@Sunil
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. You have quoted the 'cost' of being in the 'club' without mentioning the benefits, tangible and otherwise.
Not saying that the EU is perfect, but to leave it is sheer lunacy. The UK would become an isolated and poor backwater of north-west Europe as multi-nationals leave the UK in their droves.
John Major hit the nail on the head...
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/john-major-warns-of-cost-of-britain-leaving-eu-1-32139220 -
.... and on the whole the 'benefits' quoted of being in the EU are at best illusory and more often downright lies.murali_s said:@Sunil
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. You have quoted the 'cost' of being in the 'club' without mentioning the benefits, tangible and otherwise.
Not saying that the EU is perfect, but to leave it is sheer lunacy. The UK would become an isolated and poor backwater of north-west Europe as multi-nationals leave the UK in their droves.
John Major hit the nail on the head...
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/john-major-warns-of-cost-of-britain-leaving-eu-1-32139220 -
Nope. Another myth from the Eurofanaticsmurali_s said:
Er, cost of not being in the 'club' - poverty, isolation and irrelevance...0 -
stodge said:
I'm puzzled as to why the "cost" of being in something should be the rationale for whether we join it or not.
Well unless you have discovered a money tree or a goose that lays golden eggs, cost is always going to be a consideration because we have finite resources and many many demands upon those resources (and as a nation we are trillions in debt in a period of austerity).
So of course cost will be a primary consideration in doing anything that costs large amounts of cash.0 -
Well, as others have pointed out, it's pretty bloody obvious - you can't work out if something is worth doing if you don't know the costs and the benefits.stodge said:Evening all
I'm puzzled as to why the "cost" of being in something should be the rationale for whether we join it or not. I suspect being in the UN "costs" and I also suspect being in NATO "costs" as well.
0 -
Well if they are intangible and people clearly don't recognise them then you have problem because unless you can prove that they are benefits no one is going to accept them as benefits.stodge said:
Of course but the terms of the debate on both the EU and Scottish Independence seem dominated by the "costs" which are quantifiable and the "benefits" or "value" which often aren't.Charles said:
How else are you going to rigorously assess whether something is in the UK's national interest if not a cost-benefit analysis?stodge said:Evening all
I'm puzzled as to why the "cost" of being in something should be the rationale for whether we join it or not. I suspect being in the UN "costs" and I also suspect being in NATO "costs" as well.
If you start from a hostile position then an analysis based simply on accounting can usually support your position but if our future international relations are going to be based on knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing - well, that will be a strange way of doing things.
The question is less how much does it cost to be in the EU, UN or NATO but rather what value do we get from being a member of these organisations (and others ?).
The same argument can be used when discussing international aid as well.
Naturally this includes more than just financial costs, but I would assume there are formulae that are accepted to calculate the value of these intangibles (e.g. I believe the value of a human life in traffic safety measures is set at £1 million)
Those arguing a position based on benefit as distinct from those arguing on a basis of cost are often at a disadvantage but that doesn't make them wrong.
That's why people are increasingly Eurosceptic. The arguments used to justify the EU are not credible and people have learnt through bitter experience not to have faith in the words of politicians.0 -
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.
0 -
murali_s said:
Er, cost of not being in the 'club' - poverty, isolation and irrelevance...
That'll be why poor, isolated and irrelevant countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, Japan are queuing up to join an economic and political powerhouse that's given the world the stunningly successful economies of Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope. Another myth from the Eurofanatics
0 -
Spot on.JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.
0 -
Good evening, everyone.
Most surprised by the entirely one-sided nature of the match. Could do with the Italians springing a surprise against the French.0 -
The question is a balance of those two points, agreed. I don't see any value in the EU or the UN at all; in fact I think both of those organisations are fundamentally bad things. NATO as a military organisation kept us safe from the dark forces of the left during the Cold War and still has value in an unstable world.stodge said:The question is less how much does it cost to be in the EU, UN or NATO but rather what value do we get from being a member of these organisations (and others ?).
If I had to pick two out of the three to stay in I'd pick NATO twice.
0 -
[Like Button]JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.
0 -
Agree.GeoffM said:
The question is a balance of those two points, agreed. I don't see any value in the EU or the UN at all; in fact I think both of those organisations are fundamentally bad things. NATO as a military organisation kept us safe from the dark forces of the left during the Cold War and still has value in an unstable world.stodge said:The question is less how much does it cost to be in the EU, UN or NATO but rather what value do we get from being a member of these organisations (and others ?).
If I had to pick two out of the three to stay in I'd pick NATO twice.0 -
Another look at how our floodplains are mismanaged:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10625663/Flooding-Somerset-Levels-disaster-is-being-driven-by-EU-policy.html0 -
It seems a fair fee posters agree with you; can I +1 it as well? ;-)JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.0 -
Turkish government seeks to make the internet 'more free' by allowing itself to block websites: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-261032950
-
I think that Erdogan is This comment has been blocked.Morris_Dancer said:Turkish government seeks to make the internet 'more free' by allowing itself to block websites: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26103295
0 -
Mr. Jessop, freedom means the government removing material which is harmful from the internet. I'm sure there's nothing to fear.
On a serious note, one wonders if/when Turkey will turn away from this process of desecularisation and rising religious fundamentalism. Is there any prospect of Erdogan or his party losing power?0 -
I would argue a lot of things have happened without full knowledge of the "benefits" and without even full knowledge of the "costs".JohnLilburne said:
Well, as others have pointed out, it's pretty bloody obvious - you can't work out if something is worth doing if you don't know the costs and the benefits.stodge said:Evening all
I'm puzzled as to why the "cost" of being in something should be the rationale for whether we join it or not. I suspect being in the UN "costs" and I also suspect being in NATO "costs" as well.
What of HS2, Crossrail, the Channel Tunnel, NHS IT Projects, Blue Streak etc.. ? In London, the Emirates Cable Car now looks a ludicrous white elephant but at the time it was fully supported by all sides.
If we simply look at the "cost" of everything in isolation, we wouldn't do anything. I would further argue that you can set the perceived or actual cost of being in the EU as one thing but what about the money spent on QE which is at a completely different level ?
0 -
It's very quiet tonight. Is everyone waiting for me to post about the impact of increased torque and harder tyres in F1 this season?0
-
Mr. Stodge, I'd also ask: what price sovereignty?
Nobody was asked about joining a political union. The vote was on trade, it was after we'd joined and it was decades ago.0 -
The ruling party is fighting amongst themselves at the moment, hence the recent court cases. The Gulen faction are opposing the Erdogan faction in the same way that they both opposed the secularists. It's quite funny. Gulen is a major figure, and is worth studying, especially his movement. It's either frightening or liberating, depending on your viewpoint.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Jessop, freedom means the government removing material which is harmful from the internet. I'm sure there's nothing to fear.
On a serious note, one wonders if/when Turkey will turn away from this process of desecularisation and rising religious fundamentalism. Is there any prospect of Erdogan or his party losing power?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fethullah_Gülen
On the other hand, the Erdogan government (and the people of Turkey) are behaving brilliantly to the Syrian refugees who have crossed the border. They deserve congratulating for that, if nothing else.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100253796/turkeys-response-to-the-syrian-refugee-crisis-has-been-little-short-of-heroic/0 -
0
-
We were never "asked" about joining NATO and in effect we've pooled sovereignty to be part of that organisation. If Estonia is attacked by Russia, we are obliged to intervene militarily. One might argue that while defending Belgium in 1914 was clearly in our national interests but would it be the same ?Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, I'd also ask: what price sovereignty?
Nobody was asked about joining a political union. The vote was on trade, it was after we'd joined and it was decades ago.
In any case, sovereignty is pooled across the UN and any number of international organisations. In the case of EU, we gave away part of our economic sovereignty when signing up for the Single Market (don't recall a referendum on that either).
The current arrangements whereby future changes to EU Treaties are subject to a UK Referendum is perfectly fine. We didn't have referenda on either Lisbon or Maastricht but that's water under the proverbial bridge.0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554753/Conservative-Party-dominated-Tories-extreme-views-Europe-sex-marriage-green-policies-says-ousted-MP.html
I look forward to Tim Yeo coming clean and signing up for the Liberal Democrats.0 -
Mr. Stodge, NATO isn't seeking to levy an FTT on the City of London.0
-
It's curious how Yeo only discovered there were such extreme views after he was deselected...0
-
Recently deceased 85 year old widow leaves the Tories £769,000 in her will but her carer only £2,000 and nothing for her family
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10624966/Frugal-widow-becomes-one-of-biggest-donors-in-history-of-Conservative-Party.html0 -
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Conversely, how would someone know an employee is British just because he/she says so ?0 -
Given that there seems to be a lot of documentation pointing at flooding people out of their homes as a deliberate policy i hope there's some ambulance-chasing lawyers about.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10625663/Flooding-Somerset-Levels-disaster-is-being-driven-by-EU-policy.html
"down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6."
0 -
What utter garbage. The levels have been maintained as farming land and communities for hundreds of years by farmers and local communities doing their own dredging and maintaining the drainage - the same communities who drained the levels and made them productive in the first place.Hugh said:
Tory politicians rightly decided that dredging was a counter-productive waste of money.JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.
Why should taxpayers fork out compensation for people who decide to live on floodplain marshland that has inevitably and unavoidably flooded?
What has changed is that government has come in, taken over responsibility for the maintenance and then not only decided not to carry it out but refused to allow anyone else to do it either.
If it had been left to the farmers the chances are it would not have got to this point.
Of course being a blind lefty you can only see government interference as a good thing. This is a classic case that proves who idiotic that idea really is.
This is not the same as building on flood plains. Flood plains serve n entirely different purpose. This is the equivalent of leaving Holland to sink beneath the waves once again and then saying the Dutch were stupid to have built there in the first place.0 -
Typical farmer types. Always wants subsidies. Just give them a few boats and tell them to live in them.Hugh said:
Tory politicians rightly decided that dredging was a counter-productive waste of money.JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.
Why should taxpayers fork out compensation for people who decide to live on floodplain marshland that has inevitably and unavoidably flooded?
Scroungers all !0 -
So what you are saying is that we should ignore the costs - not bother about them whatever they might be - whilst at the same time taking it on faith that the benefits of EU membership are so obvious they do not need to be calculated.stodge said:
I would argue a lot of things have happened without full knowledge of the "benefits" and without even full knowledge of the "costs".JohnLilburne said:
Well, as others have pointed out, it's pretty bloody obvious - you can't work out if something is worth doing if you don't know the costs and the benefits.stodge said:Evening all
I'm puzzled as to why the "cost" of being in something should be the rationale for whether we join it or not. I suspect being in the UN "costs" and I also suspect being in NATO "costs" as well.
What of HS2, Crossrail, the Channel Tunnel, NHS IT Projects, Blue Streak etc.. ? In London, the Emirates Cable Car now looks a ludicrous white elephant but at the time it was fully supported by all sides.
If we simply look at the "cost" of everything in isolation, we wouldn't do anything. I would further argue that you can set the perceived or actual cost of being in the EU as one thing but what about the money spent on QE which is at a completely different level ?
I am sure that is going to be a winning argument.0 -
You think Cameron is a "desperate rightwing ideologue"? Oh dear.Hugh said:
He should stay in the Tory Party and help drag them into the 21st century after defeat in 2015.stodge said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554753/Conservative-Party-dominated-Tories-extreme-views-Europe-sex-marriage-green-policies-says-ousted-MP.html
I look forward to Tim Yeo coming clean and signing up for the Liberal Democrats.
The Tories need to move on from desperate rightwing ideologues like Gove, Cameron, Osborne, IDS, and modernise.
PS "inevitably" means "unavoidably" and vice versa.
0 -
Mr. Tyndall, not had this confirmed (heard it anecdotally) but apparently in part of East Anglia they refused point blank to let the Environment AGency handle dredging, and still do it themselves.0
-
Tory politicians? I presume you mean Tories in the sense of Blairites? This has been going on ten years or more.Hugh said:
Tory politicians rightly decided that dredging was a counter-productive waste of money.JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.
Why should taxpayers fork out compensation for people who decide to live on floodplain marshland that has inevitably and unavoidably flooded?
The Levels aren't floodplain; they are reclaimed land. Historically, they have been maintained by government (originally mostly local) and by locals cooperating with government doing things like clearing ditches. People who bought property there did so in the knowledge that this land has historically been maintained as dry land.
Your argument is a bit like saying: if you live next to a pub, surely I should put up with people pissing in my front garden? If I live next to a paper factory, I should put up with my house being burnt down every now and again. The answer to both is No. While you might expect a pub to be more lively than a house occupied by an elderly spinster, there are laws against public nuisance which we expect the authorities to enforce. We also expect the fire brigade to put out fires which threaten our properties. That is what we pay taxes for.
If the Levels are to be abandoned - that policy needs to be made clearly and overtly, and appropriate measures put in place to compensate those who bought properties expecting the status quo to be maintained.
0 -
Before you put the enormo-haddock on the launch pad, Mr Dancer, you were the one who used the term "sovereignty".Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, NATO isn't seeking to levy an FTT on the City of London.
0 -
" If Estonia is attacked by Russia, we are obliged to intervene militarily."
Nope. Please read the NATO treaty. We would be obliged to take such action as we deem necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic Area (Article 5 refers).
We could (and probably would given the state of our armed forces) deem it necessary to send a sharp note to the Russians and maybe even table a motion at the UN. We would then have discharged our obligations.
NATO is a nonsense and has been for the past couple of decades.0 -
Mr. Stodge, the enormo-haddock require no launchpad. They can strike from anywhere, at any time.
True, but there's a qualitative difference between a foreign body deliberately damaging our economy through taxation that disproportionately affects us and a reciprocal defence arrangement, and you're being a tinker by pretending otherwise.
As an aside, it occurs to me the EU has all the power hungry meddling of the worst days of Rome and Byzantium and none of the virtues. Ah, imagine what we could do with a Trajan or Aurelian at the helm.0 -
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
0 -
My God this chap Hugh is really thick.Hugh said:
He should stay in the Tory Party and help drag them into the 21st century after defeat in 2015.stodge said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554753/Conservative-Party-dominated-Tories-extreme-views-Europe-sex-marriage-green-policies-says-ousted-MP.html
I look forward to Tim Yeo coming clean and signing up for the Liberal Democrats.
The Tories need to move on from desperate rightwing ideologues like Gove, Cameron, Osborne, IDS, and modernise.0 -
Civilization pretty much boils down to digging and maintaining drainage ditches.0
-
All this guff about the use of the EU and why we should be out is, I must admit, rather amusing.
First reason : for the first time in 60 years the UK or the nations within the UK, or the nations now in the EU have not been in war with each other.
Secondly : and sorry folks, but within the next 100 years the major blocks; EU, Africa, South America, North America, South Asia and Australia, India, China and the Arabian Penisula will either be at war or have amalgamated to form a single government.
Rubbish all the Kippers will be saying, but consider this, through out history, families joined together to form hamlets for the joint protection, hamlets became villages, villages became towns, towns became cities, etc., etc.. To protect themselves from the multi-national companies, as well as collecting taxes due, the blocks will have to cooperate one way or another.
Of course, the South of Engerlund could try and be a Swiss or Caribbean island equivalent, but a world government could just as easily isolate the area, but I would like to think that the residents wouldn't be that daft.-1 -
You mean the tories should come to your leftwing idea's,if that happens,why don't we just call the tories blue labour.Hugh said:
He should stay in the Tory Party and help drag them into the 21st century after defeat in 2015.stodge said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554753/Conservative-Party-dominated-Tories-extreme-views-Europe-sex-marriage-green-policies-says-ousted-MP.html
I look forward to Tim Yeo coming clean and signing up for the Liberal Democrats.
The Tories need to move on from desperate rightwing ideologues like Gove, Cameron, Osborne, IDS, and modernise.
We know one thing,you will still hate them.
0 -
PB Hodges Memorandum - If you are not right wing, you are thick.nigel4england said:
My God this chap Hugh is really thick.Hugh said:
He should stay in the Tory Party and help drag them into the 21st century after defeat in 2015.stodge said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554753/Conservative-Party-dominated-Tories-extreme-views-Europe-sex-marriage-green-policies-says-ousted-MP.html
I look forward to Tim Yeo coming clean and signing up for the Liberal Democrats.
The Tories need to move on from desperate rightwing ideologues like Gove, Cameron, Osborne, IDS, and modernise.0 -
I'm not sure I'm saying that - what I am saying is that if we are going to apply one set of criteria to the viability of EU membership, we should apply the same set to everything else.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that we should ignore the costs - not bother about them whatever they might be - whilst at the same time taking it on faith that the benefits of EU membership are so obvious they do not need to be calculated.
I am sure that is going to be a winning argument.
There seems a huge disparity over the "cost" of EU membership. I don't know the truth - what I do know is that while there are those who assert that the rationale behind our continuing membership is simply to perpetuate the interests of a self-elected political elite, I suspect there are other more compelling reasons why we stay in.
I do agree that those who advocate continuing membership need to put forward a stronger argument and even those like me who wish to stay in but see the un deniable case for root-and-branch reform have to be clear about where that reform would lead.0 -
Mr. Rokz, I fear you're 100% wrong. The EU cannot survive because its constant drive for closer ties lack democratic consent and economic sense (cf the eurozone). It'll be torn apart sooner or later, and we'll end up with mass civil disturbance at best and war at worst. The sooner it falls the better, before so much integration occurs that disentangling it becomes very, very difficult.0
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10625663/Flooding-Somerset-Levels-disaster-is-being-driven-by-EU-policy.htmlHugh said:
No need to have a policy of abandoning the floodplain marshlands. Just that the people there have to accept that they will flood, and it will happen more and more often, and no-one can stop it so don't coming begging the State for help.JohnLilburne said:
Tory politicians? I presume you mean Tories in the sense of Blairites? This has been going on ten years or more.Hugh said:
Tory politicians rightly decided that dredging was a counter-productive waste of money.JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.
Why should taxpayers fork out compensation for people who decide to live on floodplain marshland that has inevitably and unavoidably flooded?
The Levels aren't floodplain; they are reclaimed land. Historically, they have been maintained by government (originally mostly local) and by locals cooperating with government doing things like clearing ditches. People who bought property there did so in the knowledge that this land has historically been maintained as dry land.
Your argument is a bit like saying: if you live next to a pub, surely I should put up with people pissing in my front garden? If I live next to a paper factory, I should put up with my house being burnt down every now and again. The answer to both is No. While you might expect a pub to be more lively than a house occupied by an elderly spinster, there are laws against public nuisance which we expect the authorities to enforce. We also expect the fire brigade to put out fires which threaten our properties. That is what we pay taxes for.
If the Levels are to be abandoned - that policy needs to be made clearly and overtly, and appropriate measures put in place to compensate those who bought properties expecting the status quo to be maintained.
"down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6."0 -
Er, why should the cost of being in any 'club' be a net 10 billion quid?murali_s said:
Er, cost of not being in the 'club' - poverty, isolation and irrelevance...
Don't forget the 3m jobs that will go.0 -
You really are dim, aren't you? We are talking about farmland here. Does it not occur to you that farming land, whether it's a flood plain or not, is different from and inconsistent with building on it?Hugh said:This is not the same as building on flood plains.
Building on flood plains isn't the same as building on flood plains? Interesting argument.
Nothing could have stopped this flooding, the only thing to blame is the extreme weather.
And as we continue to change the climate it's only going to get worse, so time to come up with some proper long term solutions, otherwise the farmers can kiss goodbye to their land.
Somerset is one big lake. Dredging? Lol.
Probably not.
0 -
No need to have a policy of providing Jobseeker's Allowance to those out of work. Just that people have to accept that they will sometimes be out of work, and that it will happen more and more often, and no-one can stop it so don't come begging the State for help.Hugh said:
No need to have a policy of abandoning the floodplain marshlands. Just that the people there have to accept that they will flood, and it will happen more and more often, and no-one can stop it so don't coming begging the State for help.JohnLilburne said:
Tory politicians? I presume you mean Tories in the sense of Blairites? This has been going on ten years or more.Hugh said:
Tory politicians rightly decided that dredging was a counter-productive waste of money.JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.
Why should taxpayers fork out compensation for people who decide to live on floodplain marshland that has inevitably and unavoidably flooded?
The Levels aren't floodplain; they are reclaimed land. Historically, they have been maintained by government (originally mostly local) and by locals cooperating with government doing things like clearing ditches. People who bought property there did so in the knowledge that this land has historically been maintained as dry land.
Your argument is a bit like saying: if you live next to a pub, surely I should put up with people pissing in my front garden? If I live next to a paper factory, I should put up with my house being burnt down every now and again. The answer to both is No. While you might expect a pub to be more lively than a house occupied by an elderly spinster, there are laws against public nuisance which we expect the authorities to enforce. We also expect the fire brigade to put out fires which threaten our properties. That is what we pay taxes for.
If the Levels are to be abandoned - that policy needs to be made clearly and overtly, and appropriate measures put in place to compensate those who bought properties expecting the status quo to be maintained.
0 -
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.0 -
I call my six year old nephew "a tinker" but there you go...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, the enormo-haddock require no launchpad. They can strike from anywhere, at any time.
True, but there's a qualitative difference between a foreign body deliberately damaging our economy through taxation that disproportionately affects us and a reciprocal defence arrangement, and you're being a tinker by pretending otherwise.
As an aside, it occurs to me the EU has all the power hungry meddling of the worst days of Rome and Byzantium and none of the virtues. Ah, imagine what we could do with a Trajan or Aurelian at the helm.
To play Devil's Advocate, let me suggest that in all large organisations there comes a point when it is necessary to disadvantage one part of the organisation to benefit the whole.
Proponents of the FTT might argue that the revenue raised will benefit the whole of the EU just as a Council might close a service in one area to provide a better service in another.
That's a hard one for the disadvantaged area to swallow but that's how it is sometimes.0 -
Point 1 - we have not been at war with Japan for 60 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Turkey for 90 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Russia for 140 years despite them not being in the EUEdin_Rokz said:All this guff about the use of the EU and why we should be out is, I must admit, rather amusing.
First reason : for the first time in 60 years the UK or the nations within the UK, or the nations now in the EU have not been in war with each other.
Secondly : and sorry folks, but within the next 100 years the major blocks; EU, Africa, South America, North America, South Asia and Australia, India, China and the Arabian Penisula will either be at war or have amalgamated to form a single government.
Rubbish all the Kippers will be saying, but consider this, through out history, families joined together to form hamlets for the joint protection, hamlets became villages, villages became towns, towns became cities, etc., etc.. To protect themselves from the multi-national companies, as well as collecting taxes due, the blocks will have to cooperate one way or another.
Of course, the South of Engerlund could try and be a Swiss or Caribbean island equivalent, but a world government could just as easily isolate the area, but I would like to think that the residents wouldn't be that daft.
Point 2 - Have you asked any of the peoples of these nations about this? If you look at the trend it's actually for countries to split up into smaller units e.g South Sudan, East Timor, Indie refs in Scotland and maybe Catalonia
0 -
Fine. So you would have no problem with them forming a co-operative to dredge the rivers themselves? Because co-ops are good, right?Hugh said:
No need to have a policy of abandoning the floodplain marshlands. Just that the people there have to accept that they will flood, and it will happen more and more often, and no-one can stop it so don't coming begging the State for help.JohnLilburne said:
Tory politicians? I presume you mean Tories in the sense of Blairites? This has been going on ten years or more.Hugh said:
Tory politicians rightly decided that dredging was a counter-productive waste of money.JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.
Why should taxpayers fork out compensation for people who decide to live on floodplain marshland that has inevitably and unavoidably flooded?
The Levels aren't floodplain; they are reclaimed land. Historically, they have been maintained by government (originally mostly local) and by locals cooperating with government doing things like clearing ditches. People who bought property there did so in the knowledge that this land has historically been maintained as dry land.
Your argument is a bit like saying: if you live next to a pub, surely I should put up with people pissing in my front garden? If I live next to a paper factory, I should put up with my house being burnt down every now and again. The answer to both is No. While you might expect a pub to be more lively than a house occupied by an elderly spinster, there are laws against public nuisance which we expect the authorities to enforce. We also expect the fire brigade to put out fires which threaten our properties. That is what we pay taxes for.
If the Levels are to be abandoned - that policy needs to be made clearly and overtly, and appropriate measures put in place to compensate those who bought properties expecting the status quo to be maintained.0 -
Mr. Stodge, you're lucky I didn't call you a naughty tinker and send you off to bed without supper!
Also, that argument is despicable and anyone who genuinely believed the British economy should be shafted to help Brussels will be added to the space cannon list.
There is no democratic legitimacy behind the unelected, unaccountable and unaudited EU taxing the UK. It's completely unacceptable.0 -
There is also general view that disproportionate harm to one part to benefit the whole is inequitable.stodge said:
I call my six year old nephew "a tinker" but there you go...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, the enormo-haddock require no launchpad. They can strike from anywhere, at any time.
True, but there's a qualitative difference between a foreign body deliberately damaging our economy through taxation that disproportionately affects us and a reciprocal defence arrangement, and you're being a tinker by pretending otherwise.
As an aside, it occurs to me the EU has all the power hungry meddling of the worst days of Rome and Byzantium and none of the virtues. Ah, imagine what we could do with a Trajan or Aurelian at the helm.
To play Devil's Advocate, let me suggest that in all large organisations there comes a point when it is necessary to disadvantage one part of the organisation to benefit the whole.
Proponents of the FTT might argue that the revenue raised will benefit the whole of the EU just as a Council might close a service in one area to provide a better service in another.
That's a hard one for the disadvantaged area to swallow but that's how it is sometimes.
The UK without the City with be in a bad way economically. It is not a good thing that we are so dependent on one specific industry, and we should be actively working to rebalance the economy, but right now we are where we are0 -
I'm sure ILR can coexist with "no recourse to public funds" so wondered if it can also coexist with not having the right to work.surbiton said:
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.
Although I was always confused about letting refugees into the country and not giving the right to work: ie you can come in as long as you scrounge off the tax payer. If you want to stand on your own two feet you can fuck right off.
I also wonder if ILR is issued on a time-limited basis, ie indefinite doesn't mean it doesn't have to be renewed from time to time.
0 -
LikeCharles said:
Fine. So you would have no problem with them forming a co-operative to dredge the rivers themselves? Because co-ops are good, right?Hugh said:
No need to have a policy of abandoning the floodplain marshlands. Just that the people there have to accept that they will flood, and it will happen more and more often, and no-one can stop it so don't coming begging the State for help.JohnLilburne said:
Tory politicians? I presume you mean Tories in the sense of Blairites? This has been going on ten years or more.Hugh said:
Tory politicians rightly decided that dredging was a counter-productive waste of money.JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
It may well be that the value of agricultural land is now such that it is no longer worth maintaining the Levels as dry land. But if so, that policy needs to be made overtly - by politicians, not by an executive agency like the EA - and appropriate compensation paid by those disappropriated.
Not a decision made by the EA off its own bat to stop dredging, and bugger the consequences ten years hence.
Why should taxpayers fork out compensation for people who decide to live on floodplain marshland that has inevitably and unavoidably flooded?
The Levels aren't floodplain; they are reclaimed land. Historically, they have been maintained by government (originally mostly local) and by locals cooperating with government doing things like clearing ditches. People who bought property there did so in the knowledge that this land has historically been maintained as dry land.
Your argument is a bit like saying: if you live next to a pub, surely I should put up with people pissing in my front garden? If I live next to a paper factory, I should put up with my house being burnt down every now and again. The answer to both is No. While you might expect a pub to be more lively than a house occupied by an elderly spinster, there are laws against public nuisance which we expect the authorities to enforce. We also expect the fire brigade to put out fires which threaten our properties. That is what we pay taxes for.
If the Levels are to be abandoned - that policy needs to be made clearly and overtly, and appropriate measures put in place to compensate those who bought properties expecting the status quo to be maintained.
0 -
I guess you don't have the same problem with the entitlement culture of those who expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their 4 (or more) children, house and car and can't be arsed going to work?Hugh said:
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.Charles said:
Fine. So you would have no problem with them forming a co-operative to dredge the rivers themselves? Because co-ops are good, right?Hugh said:
No need to have a policy of abandoning the floodplain marshlands. Just that the people there have to accept that they will flood, and it will happen more and more often, and no-one can stop it so don't coming begging the State for help.JohnLilburne said:
Tory politicians? I presume you mean Tories in the sense of Blairites? This has been going on ten years or more.Hugh said:
Tory politicians rightly decided that dredging was a counter-productive waste of money.JohnLilburne said:
It appears so.MrJones said:So do all three cheeks of the political class support flooding British ex-citizens out of their homes by stealth?
Why should taxpayers fork out compensation for people who decide to live on floodplain marshland that has inevitably and unavoidably flooded?
The Levels aren't floodplain; they are reclaimed land. Historically, they have been maintained by government (originally mostly local) and by locals cooperating with government doing things like clearing ditches. People who bought property there did so in the knowledge that this land has historically been maintained as dry land.
Your argument is a bit like saying: if you live next to a pub, surely I should put up with people pissing in my front garden? If I live next to a paper factory, I should put up with my house being burnt down every now and again. The answer to both is No. While you might expect a pub to be more lively than a house occupied by an elderly spinster, there are laws against public nuisance which we expect the authorities to enforce. We also expect the fire brigade to put out fires which threaten our properties. That is what we pay taxes for.
If the Levels are to be abandoned - that policy needs to be made clearly and overtly, and appropriate measures put in place to compensate those who bought properties expecting the status quo to be maintained.
0 -
Evening all, its nearly 10pm and no polls yet. Are we not even getting a YouJokeGov tonight?0
-
I believe it also has "no recourse to public benefits" which really sucks.surbiton said:
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.0 -
I'm not aware of any polls tonight apart from the usual YouGov which will probably be published in the morning.Easterross said:Evening all, its nearly 10pm and no polls yet. Are we not even getting a YouJokeGov tonight?
0 -
It usually gets tweeted at 10 or thereabouts. It is also 4 weeks since the last ICM/Guardian and I think 5 since a Survation/MailoSEasterross said:Evening all, its nearly 10pm and no polls yet. Are we not even getting a YouJokeGov tonight?
0 -
And that's exactly the problem.Hugh said:
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.0 -
Why does that suck? If we made it the most usual immigration condition, we could then afford to be more flexible on immigration. All those people who immigrated to the USA in the19th and early 20th centuries and made it great... did so on a "no recourse" basis.Charles said:
I believe it also has "no recourse to public benefits" which really sucks.surbiton said:
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.
0 -
100 years ago, it was obvious that all the world would be divided between half a dozen empires.Edin_Rokz said:All this guff about the use of the EU and why we should be out is, I must admit, rather amusing.
First reason : for the first time in 60 years the UK or the nations within the UK, or the nations now in the EU have not been in war with each other.
Secondly : and sorry folks, but within the next 100 years the major blocks; EU, Africa, South America, North America, South Asia and Australia, India, China and the Arabian Penisula will either be at war or have amalgamated to form a single government.
Rubbish all the Kippers will be saying, but consider this, through out history, families joined together to form hamlets for the joint protection, hamlets became villages, villages became towns, towns became cities, etc., etc.. To protect themselves from the multi-national companies, as well as collecting taxes due, the blocks will have to cooperate one way or another.
Of course, the South of Engerlund could try and be a Swiss or Caribbean island equivalent, but a world government could just as easily isolate the area, but I would like to think that the residents wouldn't be that daft.
It didn't turn out like that.
0 -
Creates two classes of citizens. Either you accept someone into the country or you don't.JohnLilburne said:
Why does that suck? If we made it the most usual immigration condition, we could then afford to be more flexible on immigration. All those people who immigrated to the USA in the19th and early 20th centuries and made it great... did so on a "no recourse" basis.
My wife is an American citizen with ILR status. Before she decided to become a full-time Mum, she worked and paid taxes for 6 years. But without any recourse to public benefits (technically not even the NHS).0 -
The disparity is - your wife was here on a No Recourse basis, but plenty of other people who show up on the beach get the works from day 1.Charles said:
Creates two classes of citizens. Either you accept someone into the country or you don't.JohnLilburne said:
Why does that suck? If we made it the most usual immigration condition, we could then afford to be more flexible on immigration. All those people who immigrated to the USA in the19th and early 20th centuries and made it great... did so on a "no recourse" basis.
My wife is an American citizen with ILR status. Before she decided to become a full-time Mum, she worked and paid taxes for 6 years. But without any recourse to public benefits (technically not even the NHS).
Anyway you say "two classes of citizens". Once Mrs Charles takes British citizenship presumably she will qualify for everything? If she decides not to, that is her own look out.
IMO we need to move the qualification for benefits from "everyone who lives here gets it" to something more like residency.
0 -
"without recourse to public funds" usually refers to "leaves to remain" that have time limits to them - once someone has "indefinite leave to remain" they are no longer subject to immigration control - except where someone has gained leave to remain through sponsorship - in which case the prohibition of access to public funds is understandable.Charles said:
I believe it also has "no recourse to public benefits" which really sucks.surbiton said:
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.
0 -
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.Charles said:
And that's exactly the problem.Hugh said:
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (a1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.
0 -
ILR depends on circumstances (e.g. being married to Charles). IIRC even "indefinite" leave needs to be reviewed from time to time to make sure your circumstances haven't changed.CarlottaVance said:
"without recourse to public funds" usually refers to "leaves to remain" that have time limits to them - once someone has "indefinite leave to remain" they are no longer subject to immigration control - except where someone has gained leave to remain through sponsorship - in which case the prohibition of access to public funds is understandable.Charles said:
I believe it also has "no recourse to public benefits" which really sucks.surbiton said:
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.
0 -
That's the point at which the inhabitants of that area might decide they're better off governing themselves.stodge said:
I call my six year old nephew "a tinker" but there you go...Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Stodge, the enormo-haddock require no launchpad. They can strike from anywhere, at any time.
True, but there's a qualitative difference between a foreign body deliberately damaging our economy through taxation that disproportionately affects us and a reciprocal defence arrangement, and you're being a tinker by pretending otherwise.
As an aside, it occurs to me the EU has all the power hungry meddling of the worst days of Rome and Byzantium and none of the virtues. Ah, imagine what we could do with a Trajan or Aurelian at the helm.
To play Devil's Advocate, let me suggest that in all large organisations there comes a point when it is necessary to disadvantage one part of the organisation to benefit the whole.
Proponents of the FTT might argue that the revenue raised will benefit the whole of the EU just as a Council might close a service in one area to provide a better service in another.
That's a hard one for the disadvantaged area to swallow but that's how it is sometimes.
0 -
Absolutely we should apply the same criteria. And if a cost benefit analysis was done on the EU, NATO and the UN you and I both know which one would be shown to cost the most (by several magnitudes) and also was the least beneficial to us.stodge said:
I'm not sure I'm saying that - what I am saying is that if we are going to apply one set of criteria to the viability of EU membership, we should apply the same set to everything else.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that we should ignore the costs - not bother about them whatever they might be - whilst at the same time taking it on faith that the benefits of EU membership are so obvious they do not need to be calculated.
I am sure that is going to be a winning argument.
There seems a huge disparity over the "cost" of EU membership. I don't know the truth - what I do know is that while there are those who assert that the rationale behind our continuing membership is simply to perpetuate the interests of a self-elected political elite, I suspect there are other more compelling reasons why we stay in.
I do agree that those who advocate continuing membership need to put forward a stronger argument and even those like me who wish to stay in but see the un deniable case for root-and-branch reform have to be clear about where that reform would lead.
Your problem seems to be you don't want the cost/benefit done because you know you won't like the results.0 -
She paid her taxes though - that should qualify you for something.JohnLilburne said:
The disparity is - your wife was here on a No Recourse basis, but plenty of other people who show up on the beach get the works from day 1.Charles said:
Creates two classes of citizens. Either you accept someone into the country or you don't.JohnLilburne said:
Why does that suck? If we made it the most usual immigration condition, we could then afford to be more flexible on immigration. All those people who immigrated to the USA in the19th and early 20th centuries and made it great... did so on a "no recourse" basis.
My wife is an American citizen with ILR status. Before she decided to become a full-time Mum, she worked and paid taxes for 6 years. But without any recourse to public benefits (technically not even the NHS).
Anyway you say "two classes of citizens". Once Mrs Charles takes British citizenship presumably she will qualify for everything? If she decides not to, that is her own look out.
IMO we need to move the qualification for benefits from "everyone who lives here gets it" to something more like residency.
(and she wasn't allowed recourse to benefits because my income & assets were deemed too high even when we were dating)0 -
According to the local press, reporting parliamentary debate, the farmers paid local drainage boards, who paid the EA.SouthamObserver said:
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.Charles said:
And that's exactly the problem.Hugh said:
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (a1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.
http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2014/floods-tessa-munt-24-01-14.php0 -
It never ceases to amaze me how much ignorance you can display and yet still post on here without realising how foolish you look.Hugh said:This is not the same as building on flood plains.
Building on flood plains isn't the same as building on flood plains? Interesting argument.
Nothing could have stopped this flooding, the only thing to blame is the extreme weather.
And as we continue to change the climate it's only going to get worse, so time to come up with some proper long term solutions, otherwise the farmers can kiss goodbye to their land.
Somerset is one big lake. Dredging? Lol.
1. It is not flood plain. It is drained land in the same way as much of Holland. As such it is not subject to the same issues with building or with transference of problems if proper drainage is maintained.
2. We have had just as extreme weather in the past and have not seen the same issues with flooding because the drainage systems were properly maintained.
3. This has sweet FA to do with climate change. It is indeed man made but much closer to home and entirely avoidable if the same measures had been followed as have been followed for hundreds of years.0 -
No, ILR gives you right to benefits and work in all circumstances. It essentially gives you all the rights of a UK citizen, other than voting. It also doesn't need renewingCharles said:
I believe it also has "no recourse to public benefits" which really sucks.surbiton said:
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.
The only way you can lose it is move abroad for 2 years or be convicted of a serious crime.0 -
I only read the clip that someone pasted rather than the whole article.SouthamObserver said:
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.Charles said:
And that's exactly the problem.Hugh said:
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (a1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.
But: (a) the policy decision was made, IIRC, in 2000 & this was the consequence of years of neglect. And (b) if you devolve responsibility to an executive agency and give them a budget then it is their fault if they choose to spend it in a sub-optimal way. You can't blame the government because the EA didn't do their job properly (due, it appears, to political/philosophical preferences of wildlife over farmers)0 -
People on ILR are permitted benefits - it is the UK equivalent of a green card.JohnLilburne said:
The disparity is - your wife was here on a No Recourse basis, but plenty of other people who show up on the beach get the works from day 1.Charles said:
Creates two classes of citizens. Either you accept someone into the country or you don't.JohnLilburne said:
Why does that suck? If we made it the most usual immigration condition, we could then afford to be more flexible on immigration. All those people who immigrated to the USA in the19th and early 20th centuries and made it great... did so on a "no recourse" basis.
My wife is an American citizen with ILR status. Before she decided to become a full-time Mum, she worked and paid taxes for 6 years. But without any recourse to public benefits (technically not even the NHS).
Anyway you say "two classes of citizens". Once Mrs Charles takes British citizenship presumably she will qualify for everything? If she decides not to, that is her own look out.
IMO we need to move the qualification for benefits from "everyone who lives here gets it" to something more like residency.0 -
That's right - it's indefinite, not permanent.JohnLilburne said:
ILR depends on circumstances (e.g. being married to Charles). IIRC even "indefinite" leave needs to be reviewed from time to time to make sure your circumstances haven't changed.CarlottaVance said:
"without recourse to public funds" usually refers to "leaves to remain" that have time limits to them - once someone has "indefinite leave to remain" they are no longer subject to immigration control - except where someone has gained leave to remain through sponsorship - in which case the prohibition of access to public funds is understandable.Charles said:
I believe it also has "no recourse to public benefits" which really sucks.surbiton said:
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.
I get really p1ssed off, though, that they charge her £1,000 every ten years to renew the stamp. And £1,000 every ten years when her US passport expires and they have to put a new stamp in the new passport. It's a bleeding racket.
0 -
I think "indefinite" means what it says on the tin - "indefinite" (unless you are convicted of an offence that can lead to deportation) means you can stay for ever - even if Mrs Charles (heaven forbid) no longer wished to be Mrs Charles.....tho to get there Mrs Charles may need to have several "permission to remain"s (without recourse to public funds) to get there - to demonstrate that its a genuine relationship...tho things may have changed since friends went through this.....JohnLilburne said:
ILR depends on circumstances (e.g. being married to Charles). IIRC even "indefinite" leave needs to be reviewed from time to time to make sure your circumstances haven't changed.CarlottaVance said:
"without recourse to public funds" usually refers to "leaves to remain" that have time limits to them - once someone has "indefinite leave to remain" they are no longer subject to immigration control - except where someone has gained leave to remain through sponsorship - in which case the prohibition of access to public funds is understandable.Charles said:
I believe it also has "no recourse to public benefits" which really sucks.surbiton said:
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.
0 -
You're wasting your money - ILR doesn't expire. You can use a visa in an old expired passport.0
-
...checks stamp in wife's passport....not_on_fire said:
No, ILR gives you right to benefits and work in all circumstances. It essentially gives you all the rights of a UK citizen, other than voting. It also doesn't need renewingCharles said:
I believe it also has "no recourse to public benefits" which really sucks.surbiton said:
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.
The only way you can lose it is move abroad for 2 years or be convicted of a serious crime.
Hmmh. Nope. No recourse to public funds.0 -
US government doesn't let you keep old passports...not_on_fire said:You're wasting your money - ILR doesn't expire. You can use a visa in an old expired passport.
0 -
Sat night we usually wait for midnight, then TSE buys a copy of the Sunday Times. Other nights it's 10pm.JohnLilburne said:
It usually gets tweeted at 10 or thereabouts. It is also 4 weeks since the last ICM/Guardian and I think 5 since a Survation/MailoSEasterross said:Evening all, its nearly 10pm and no polls yet. Are we not even getting a YouJokeGov tonight?
Edin is right about the trend, though you're also right - there is certainly a trend for some small units to try to split off. However, there's also a very marked tendency to form EU-like associations in aim if not yet in reality. NAFTA is a reality, much of South America is in one trading bloc, South Asia in another, and embryonic moves in that direction are happening in Africa too. Whether trading blocs lead to other forms of integration is debatable, but the evidence seems to be that they do, slowly.Garethofthevale said:
Point 1 - we have not been at war with Japan for 60 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Turkey for 90 years despite them not being in the EU. We have not been at war with Russia for 140 years despite them not being in the EUEdin_Rokz said:All this guff about the use of the EU and why we should be out is, I must admit, rather amusing.
First reason : for the first time in 60 years the UK or the nations within the UK, or the nations now in the EU have not been in war with each other.
Secondly : and sorry folks, but within the next 100 years the major blocks; EU, Africa, South America, North America, South Asia and Australia, India, China and the Arabian Penisula will either be at war or have amalgamated to form a single government.
Point 2 - Have you asked any of the peoples of these nations about this? If you look at the trend it's actually for countries to split up into smaller units e.g South Sudan, East Timor, Indie refs in Scotland and maybe Catalonia
0 -
Sounds like she actually has a spouse visa or FLR(M) currently then - does she still have the original visa she applied for when entering the UK?
People on ILR are definitely entitled to public funds.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_leave_to_remain0 -
Not true - my wife is also a US citizen and they sent the old one back. You have to request it though.Charles said:
US government doesn't let you keep old passports...not_on_fire said:You're wasting your money - ILR doesn't expire. You can use a visa in an old expired passport.
In any case, ILR is now issued on ID cards so it's not tied to a passport.
(as you can probably guess, I've been through the whole UK immigration process with her myself)
0 -
For the "probationary period"-24-27 months:Charles said:
...checks stamp in wife's passport....not_on_fire said:
No, ILR gives you right to benefits and work in all circumstances. It essentially gives you all the rights of a UK citizen, other than voting. It also doesn't need renewingCharles said:
I believe it also has "no recourse to public benefits" which really sucks.surbiton said:
From the passports I have seen, it usually has the following on eline:JohnLilburne said:
Does ILR always come with the right to work?surbiton said:
I cannot see any circumstance when an indefinite right to stay expires. I am not sure why he should have re-checked her visa status. There was nothing to check.SMukesh said:
The cleaner is supposed to have had Indefinite leave to remain in 2007.I suspect the real story will come out in one of the Sunday newspapers.Easterross said:
All immigration work permits etc contain time limits. The only exception is where someone is given indefinite leave to remain which is usually a precursor for applying for British citizenship. Work permits and Visas like photo driving licenses catch out the majority who don't read the fine print. By law, Blair imposed an obligation on ALL UK employers to be satisfied all employees have the right to live and work in the UK. They are supposed to view and retain a copy of the employee's birth certificate if a British citizen, of their passport or identity card if an EU citizen or of their passport and Visa/Work permit stamp if non EU.SMukesh said:He says he saw the visa in 2007 and then when he became immigration minister he thought he`ll check again but forgot.And finally after 4 years he managed to do that.Why would he check again if he saw the permit.Odd!
Leave to remain in the UK indefinitely.
In other words, there are no restrictions of any kind.
The only way you can lose it is move abroad for 2 years or be convicted of a serious crime.
Hmmh. Nope. No recourse to public funds.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/partners-families/citizens-settled/spouse-cp/before9july/can-you-apply/maintenance/0 -
So that would be 5 years afterSouthamObserver said:
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.Charles said:
And that's exactly the problem.Hugh said:
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (a1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10625663/Flooding-Somerset-Levels-disaster-is-being-driven-by-EU-policy.html
"In 2008, when the EA was run by Baroness Young, this was reflected in a policy document which classified areas at risk of flooding under six categories, ranging from those in “Policy Option 1”, where flood defences were a priority, down to “Policy 6’’ where, to promote “biodiversity”, the strategy should be to “increase flooding”. The Somerset Levels were covered by Policy 6."
and
"Just add water!"
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84689
0 -
@Carlotta; That link you posted is out of date, the probationary period is now 5 years.0
-
It refers to applications before July 2012.. evidently the regulations are a moving feast.....it was much simpler (and cheaper) when my friends went through it 6 years ago.....not_on_fire said:@Carlotta; That link you posted is out of date, the probationary period is now 5 years.
0 -
Just to clear it up for everyone, this is how the current system works:
Stage 1 : Spouse / Fiancé visa applied for outside of UK. Cost approx £900. Lasts 2.5 years, no recourse to public funds.
Stage 2 : Further leave to remain in the UK. Cost approx £900. Lasts another 2.5 years, still no recourse to public funds
Stage 3 : Indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Cost approx £1200. Lasts indefinitely and recourse to public funds allowed
Stage 4: UK citizenship, costs £900. A spouse of a UK citizen is eligible after 5 years assuming they meet the criminality threshold and have ILR.
It's a similar path on a work visa except they have to wait a further year for citizenship.
0 -
You can blame the government if they are specifically asked to do something and they say no.Charles said:
I only read the clip that someone pasted rather than the whole article.SouthamObserver said:
According to today's Times the government - not the EA - refused to pay for dredging in the Levels when specifically requested last September.Charles said:
And that's exactly the problem.Hugh said:
No problem at all. They can dredge the rivers, do rain dances, whatever they want. Won't stop them flooding but it might create a bit of community bonding.
Though if their actions exacerbate flooding downstream they should pay for it rather than expecting the taxpayer to pick up the tab, entitlement culture and all that.
Originally the local farmers (there were bodies to manage it) handled the dredging.
When the EA was set up it (a1) took over the responsibilities of the river authorities, including dredging; (2) decided not to do dredge; and (3) refusing to allow the farmers to do it themselves.
It's big government deciding they know what is best, acting in a way that has serious negative consequences for local residents, and then refusing to compensate them for the damage their decisions caused.
But: (a) the policy decision was made, IIRC, in 2000 & this was the consequence of years of neglect. And (b) if you devolve responsibility to an executive agency and give them a budget then it is their fault if they choose to spend it in a sub-optimal way. You can't blame the government because the EA didn't do their job properly (due, it appears, to political/philosophical preferences of wildlife over farmers)
0 -
Correct - the Home Office are constantly changing the immigration rules, seemingly on a whim. The victims of course are those couples forced apart by politicians trying to look "tough" on immigration.CarlottaVance said:
It refers to applications before July 2012.. evidently the regulations are a moving feast.....it was much simpler (and cheaper) when my friends went through it 6 years ago.....not_on_fire said:@Carlotta; That link you posted is out of date, the probationary period is now 5 years.
0 -
Can't see this having any lasting impact on the Tories at all.0
