People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
Britain's superpower status (pre 1950s) derived from the fact it could call upon reflexive loyalty of Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa, and leverage manpower from India - and to a lesser extent East Africa. This allowed it to play at least a 30-40% partner role with the USA, as opposed to the 10% partner role we play today.
If that existed today, the UK would more than double the weight of its army and navy with the "Dominions". Still not a superpower but comfortably exceeding any other Western power, except the USA. If you added India/Africa on top - with their huge manpower - you'd then have a quasi-superpower, provided you had the logistical and staff capabilities to leverage it.
Without any of that we are just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability.
Sounds about right but I'd love to see you present that one over a few pints in the pubs and clubs of Leave Nation.
"There's nothing special about us. We're not some massive power these days. That's all gone FFS so stop getting all hoarse and misty-eyed about it. We're just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability."
You'll need to be buying otherwise there might be fisticuffs.
Your first sentence is redundant and unnecessarily confrontation which may be why you'd be expecting upset. Otherwise its pretty uncontroversial.
But the first sentence is key. The belief that we are a little bit special is at the heart of Brexit and of much of what has gone wrong with our Covid response.
But we are special.
Every country is special it its own way. We are not just some utilitarian cog that is interchangeable.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
Locals on council estates permanently on benefits having been paying into a "pot" at all. I would suspect if you add up all the taxes etc of working immigrants v local benefit people it would be obvious.
It is not all or nothing though.
We have some free riders born in this country, that is true. We have hard working people born in this country, that is also true.
We have hard working migrants in this country, that is true. We have some free riders migrating into this country, that is also true.
There is no reason we can't do what most of the world does which is allow in hard working migrants while denying benefits and free riding to the minority who want to exploit the system. What is wrong with that?
Just because a minority do the wrong thing is no reason to tarnish the majority who do not. Just because most people do the right thing is no reason not to try to stop the minority who exploit the system.
That's an interesting couplet presentation, Philip. Do you have a tune for it yet?
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Tbh, if we had a contributory benefits system that needed 12 months of contributions to become eligible they wouldn't come in the first place. In Switzerland that's actually what happens in practice. Our benefits system and attachment to the welfare state is at fault.
I'm not opposed to something like the Swiss system. It would certainly "appear" fairer. However I would be interested to know what Switzerland does with their asylum seekers. They must get some.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
Locals on council estates permanently on benefits haven't been paying into a "pot" at all. I would suspect if you add up all the taxes etc of working immigrants v local benefit people it would be obvious.
Well I couldn't agree more with that. We have enough of our own dross without importing millions more. I wouldn't give them priority for housing either, it should be the poor sods on the checkout at Asda on minimum wage.
Working immigrants are great, which is why residency should depend on having a job greater than £30k (extra if you have family). The idea that we're a charity for the world's poor and needy is complete madness.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
So you advocate throwing "foreign women and children" out onto the street? What does "foreign" mean?
Asylum seekers will be deported if they are not genuine, and if they are genuine, they deserve a house just as much as the next person.
If there's not enough social housing that's another issue, but the fact remains that ALL women and children are prioritised as higher need then men, for example. It's not a case of foreigners being prioritised as the daily mail loves to imply.
Foreign means coming from a different country.
I've already told you that foreign people are prioritised. For example the Northern council my missus worked for used a points system to see who got housing. Extra points were awarded for not speaking English, being non-white and not having any family nearby.
You can not much speak English, be non-white, and not have family nearby and STILL be born in Britain.
All those factors make you more vulnerable, so it makes sense to prioritise them in the current system, in my opinion.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
I don't believe those are the only options. I believe in many countries if someone is unable to provide for themselves then they can be assisted to return home, not given a house.
I suspect the Trumpian tax revelations will do no harm at all to his existing base. Many Americans seem to resent paying even 1¢ in tax. The more rabid right-wingers, Qanon brigade, etc, etc, will probably admire a man who foxed the system to the point he managed to pay no tax at all.
With that voter base, it probably a plus
This is a type of working class deference. We see it here too.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
So you advocate throwing "foreign women and children" out onto the street? What does "foreign" mean?
Asylum seekers will be deported if they are not genuine, and if they are genuine, they deserve a house just as much as the next person.
If there's not enough social housing that's another issue, but the fact remains that ALL women and children are prioritised as higher need then men, for example. It's not a case of foreigners being prioritised as the daily mail loves to imply.
Foreign means coming from a different country.
I've already told you that foreign people are prioritised. For example the Northern council my missus worked for used a points system to see who got housing. Extra points were awarded for not speaking English, being non-white and not having any family nearby.
You can not much speak English, be non-white, and not have family nearby and STILL be born in Britain.
All those factors make you more vulnerable, so it makes sense to prioritise them in the current system, in my opinion.
This shows exactly why our immigration policy has been a complete disaster. Multi-generations of people on benefits and still don't speak a word of English.
This has to end, what the hell are the Tories doing about it?
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
So you advocate throwing "foreign women and children" out onto the street? What does "foreign" mean?
Asylum seekers will be deported if they are not genuine, and if they are genuine, they deserve a house just as much as the next person.
If there's not enough social housing that's another issue, but the fact remains that ALL women and children are prioritised as higher need then men, for example. It's not a case of foreigners being prioritised as the daily mail loves to imply.
Foreign means coming from a different country.
I've already told you that foreign people are prioritised. For example the Northern council my missus worked for used a points system to see who got housing. Extra points were awarded for not speaking English, being non-white and not having any family nearby.
You can not much speak English, be non-white, and not have family nearby and STILL be born in Britain.
All those factors make you more vulnerable, so it makes sense to prioritise them in the current system, in my opinion.
And when that occurs the local people down the housing estate votes for change - hence Brexit...
I'm sure I actually called it on this site at 11am on the day of the referendum when my friend phoned up and said people were coming in from the housing estate where she was on duty who had never voted before and didn't know what to do.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
I don't believe those are the only options. I believe in many countries if someone is unable to provide for themselves then they can be assisted to return home, not given a house.
I didn't say they were the only options. However genuine asylum seekers need to have their cases heard. Likewise how do you deport someone if you don't know where they came from?
I suspect the Trumpian tax revelations will do no harm at all to his existing base. Many Americans seem to resent paying even 1¢ in tax. The more rabid right-wingers, Qanon brigade, etc, etc, will probably admire a man who foxed the system to the point he managed to pay no tax at all.
With that voter base, it probably a plus
Yeah. But they are all already voting for him, aren't they?
I just do not expect that report to lose him any of those voters. Anyone expecting it to erode his base may be disappointed.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Tbh, if we had a contributory benefits system that needed 12 months of contributions to become eligible they wouldn't come in the first place. In Switzerland that's actually what happens in practice. Our benefits system and attachment to the welfare state is at fault.
I'm not opposed to something like the Swiss system. It would certainly "appear" fairer. However I would be interested to know what Switzerland does with their asylum seekers. They must get some.
They have very tough rules and regular deportations. Asylum seekers aren't the problem here, it's low wage workers who need huge subsidies from the state to exist in the UK. Our benefits system is not fit for purpose because the people can't let go of the welfare state. In your earlier scenario what's to stop someone on a tourist visa setting up camp and begging? Is it then our responsibility to house them and pay for them because it's a single mother with children? What kind of pull factor does that create.
Switzerland has figured out how to do benefits (and tax) unfortunately we aren't willing to learn those lessons.
I wonder what the reason for the general unpopularity the apps are. Given how much of a big deal has been made that they are decentralized and the government can't track you, what's the aversion? Especially given the likes of Google Maps tracks your every move.
It isn't as if any Western government has suggested implemented a South Korean style spying approach.
1) apathy 2) Many dont have mobile phones at all or ones that can run the app* 3) Many never install apps on their mobile phone and are nervous of doing it 4) Many use their mobile as a landline replacement and dont carry it with them 5) apathy
*https://www.finder.com/uk/mobile-internet-statistics from there only 79% have mobiles in any case by the time you knock off those with older mobiles that cant run the app you are probably getting close to the 60% figure needed for effectiveness anyway
I don't see it being a binary useless/useful transition at 60% or whatever. Even if only 5% use it there is still benefit, especially with the venue check-in system.
There's an interesting mathematical aspect to this. If you assume that the app is perfect then the proportion of contacts found by the app (i.e. it's usefulness) is equal to the square of the proportion of people using the app.
So if 1-in-5 have the app then it will pick up 1-in-25 contacts. The difference between 50% and 60% app coverage is that between 25% and 36% contact coverage.
In the Republic of Ireland they have app downloads for about 40% of the population after hitting 20% on day one. The UK is a bit behind 20% a few days in, so they'll struggle to get much above one third - so perhaps as many as a ninth of contacts will be identified by the app (on the assumption it works perfectly).
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
So you advocate throwing "foreign women and children" out onto the street? What does "foreign" mean?
Asylum seekers will be deported if they are not genuine, and if they are genuine, they deserve a house just as much as the next person.
If there's not enough social housing that's another issue, but the fact remains that ALL women and children are prioritised as higher need then men, for example. It's not a case of foreigners being prioritised as the daily mail loves to imply.
Foreign means coming from a different country.
I've already told you that foreign people are prioritised. For example the Northern council my missus worked for used a points system to see who got housing. Extra points were awarded for not speaking English, being non-white and not having any family nearby.
You can not much speak English, be non-white, and not have family nearby and STILL be born in Britain.
All those factors make you more vulnerable, so it makes sense to prioritise them in the current system, in my opinion.
I don't believe he mentioned being born here, in fact he specifically mentioned foreign people
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
Locals on council estates permanently on benefits having been paying into a "pot" at all. I would suspect if you add up all the taxes etc of working immigrants v local benefit people it would be obvious.
It is not all or nothing though.
We have some free riders born in this country, that is true. We have hard working people born in this country, that is also true.
We have hard working migrants in this country, that is true. We have some free riders migrating into this country, that is also true.
There is no reason we can't do what most of the world does which is allow in hard working migrants while denying benefits and free riding to the minority who want to exploit the system. What is wrong with that?
Just because a minority do the wrong thing is no reason to tarnish the majority who do not. Just because most people do the right thing is no reason not to try to stop the minority who exploit the system.
There was a guy on the radio over the week-end who had just written a book on London's gang culture. He said that the whole thing is essentially controlled by a bunch of ultra-violent Albanians who essentially are conducting a reign of terror on the estates.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Rent some land in a safe country for processing asylum seekers like Australia did in Papua New Guinea. They can be kept free from harm, it's much cheaper to house them there (about 13 times if I recall correctly) and would deter non-genuine claims.
It also means that the working poor in this country might get a chance of government housing.
I wonder what the reason for the general unpopularity the apps are. Given how much of a big deal has been made that they are decentralized and the government can't track you, what's the aversion? Especially given the likes of Google Maps tracks your every move.
It isn't as if any Western government has suggested implemented a South Korean style spying approach.
1) apathy 2) Many dont have mobile phones at all or ones that can run the app* 3) Many never install apps on their mobile phone and are nervous of doing it 4) Many use their mobile as a landline replacement and dont carry it with them 5) apathy
*https://www.finder.com/uk/mobile-internet-statistics from there only 79% have mobiles in any case by the time you knock off those with older mobiles that cant run the app you are probably getting close to the 60% figure needed for effectiveness anyway
I don't see it being a binary useless/useful transition at 60% or whatever. Even if only 5% use it there is still benefit, especially with the venue check-in system.
There's an interesting mathematical aspect to this. If you assume that the app is perfect then the proportion of contacts found by the app (i.e. it's usefulness) is equal to the square of the proportion of people using the app.
So if 1-in-5 have the app then it will pick up 1-in-25 contacts. The difference between 50% and 60% app coverage is that between 25% and 36% contact coverage.
In the Republic of Ireland they have app downloads for about 40% of the population after hitting 20% on day one. The UK is a bit behind 20% a few days in, so they'll struggle to get much above one third - so perhaps as many as a ninth of contacts will be identified by the app (on the assumption it works perfectly).
This is true if the app and the interactions are randomly distributed, but they're probably not, especially if it's actively being promoted by particular locations where people gather.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
So you advocate throwing "foreign women and children" out onto the street? What does "foreign" mean?
Asylum seekers will be deported if they are not genuine, and if they are genuine, they deserve a house just as much as the next person.
If there's not enough social housing that's another issue, but the fact remains that ALL women and children are prioritised as higher need then men, for example. It's not a case of foreigners being prioritised as the daily mail loves to imply.
Foreign means coming from a different country.
I've already told you that foreign people are prioritised. For example the Northern council my missus worked for used a points system to see who got housing. Extra points were awarded for not speaking English, being non-white and not having any family nearby.
You can not much speak English, be non-white, and not have family nearby and STILL be born in Britain.
All those factors make you more vulnerable, so it makes sense to prioritise them in the current system, in my opinion.
Being born in the UK doesn't make a person a citizen - we don't have jus soli, only jus sanguinis.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
You're creating the 1 in 50,000 scenario. What about the other 49,999?
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
So you advocate throwing "foreign women and children" out onto the street? What does "foreign" mean?
Asylum seekers will be deported if they are not genuine, and if they are genuine, they deserve a house just as much as the next person.
If there's not enough social housing that's another issue, but the fact remains that ALL women and children are prioritised as higher need then men, for example. It's not a case of foreigners being prioritised as the daily mail loves to imply.
Foreign means coming from a different country.
I've already told you that foreign people are prioritised. For example the Northern council my missus worked for used a points system to see who got housing. Extra points were awarded for not speaking English, being non-white and not having any family nearby.
You can not much speak English, be non-white, and not have family nearby and STILL be born in Britain.
All those factors make you more vulnerable, so it makes sense to prioritise them in the current system, in my opinion.
I don't believe he mentioned being born here, in fact he specifically mentioned foreign people
At the weekend the ONS showed that travel abroad was a significant contributor to the spread of Covid. So R5L gives 30 minutes to "journalist" Simon Calder to tell you how to go abroad.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
Well I think that's fair.
If they've contributed then they should get access to contribution based benefits (until that contribution runs out).
But giving benefits to those that have turned up and contributed nothing is unsustainable.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
We don't know that for a fact.
We can never know it for a fact, but it does seem highly likely.
Considering most of the country that voted "leave" never experienced any real significant EU immigration, I think it's a rather lazy analysis. The areas that received significant EU immigration voted "remain".
Lincolnshire received a lot of Eastern European immigration without transition controls and had one of the highest Leave votes
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Rent some land in a safe country for processing asylum seekers like Australia did in Papua New Guinea. They can be kept free from harm, it's much cheaper to house them there (about 13 times if I recall correctly) and would deter non-genuine claims.
It also means that the working poor in this country might get a chance of government housing.
That sounds like a reasonable idea. Why isn't the Government doing it then? They have an 80 seat majority after all.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Good job Trump has the White House then, otherwise he could be homeless.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
But you must you are a dedicated member of the party responsible for the outcome, you will go on the doorsteps praising the outcome whatever that may be. Every single Tory member and many of their voters bear full responsibility for the outcomes of the dual crisis that the UK faces.
I have recanted my leave vote if not the reasons for doing so. This is not a crisis caused by leaving the EU - the question on the ballot paper. The democratic mandate was to leave the EU because that was the question asked.
HYUFD's problem is that he mistakes his interpretation of the best interests of the Conservative Party as being the best interests of the UK. If the Tories had polling showing that red wall Tories wanted to kill the first born male child in every household he'd be on here insisting that it had to happen.
The political choices made by the Tories after the referendum are the cataclysm which ultimately will destroy them. You cannot continue as a Conservative and Unionist Party when you choose a policy that destroys the economy and our standing in the world and the union. Lets be honest about this - Brexit is just their excuse to do so. Shagger isn't even a leaver...
However what the red wall voters want only matters if it doesn't impact him. For example the building of thousands of new homes in Epping? God no.
I support the building of needed new homes in Epping with appropriate infrastructure and in brownbelt areas as much as possible
"With appropriate infrastructure" has been the cry of the NIMBY for all of recorded time. New housing is never built with the appropriate infrastructure.
Of course it is and a new school, sports centre, cinema, retail and parking facilities are all part of the Epping Local Plan
Yeah good luck with that. Who's paying for a start?
The council through a council owned development company as it will bring a lot of revenue
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
Locals on council estates permanently on benefits having been paying into a "pot" at all. I would suspect if you add up all the taxes etc of working immigrants v local benefit people it would be obvious.
It is not all or nothing though.
We have some free riders born in this country, that is true. We have hard working people born in this country, that is also true.
We have hard working migrants in this country, that is true. We have some free riders migrating into this country, that is also true.
There is no reason we can't do what most of the world does which is allow in hard working migrants while denying benefits and free riding to the minority who want to exploit the system. What is wrong with that?
Just because a minority do the wrong thing is no reason to tarnish the majority who do not. Just because most people do the right thing is no reason not to try to stop the minority who exploit the system.
There was a guy on the radio over the week-end who had just written a book on London's gang culture. He said that the whole thing is essentially controlled by a bunch of ultra-violent Albanians who essentially are conducting a reign of terror on the estates.
Who let those guys in?
Why are they still here?
This illustrates why leaving the EU is not going to solve the concerns some (many) people have about immigration.
It was always within the power of the HMG to address immigration. The Tories have been in power for 10 years and done nothing about it. Probably because they are in hoc to business interests who benefit from the supply of cheap labour.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Rent some land in a safe country for processing asylum seekers like Australia did in Papua New Guinea. They can be kept free from harm, it's much cheaper to house them there (about 13 times if I recall correctly) and would deter non-genuine claims.
It also means that the working poor in this country might get a chance of government housing.
That sounds like a reasonable idea. Why isn't the Government doing it then? They have an 80 seat majority after all.
Sticking them in camps? Sounds like a terrible idea. Look at what is happening in the US for example.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
Britain's superpower status (pre 1950s) derived from the fact it could call upon reflexive loyalty of Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa, and leverage manpower from India - and to a lesser extent East Africa. This allowed it to play at least a 30-40% partner role with the USA, as opposed to the 10% partner role we play today.
If that existed today, the UK would more than double the weight of its army and navy with the "Dominions". Still not a superpower but comfortably exceeding any other Western power, except the USA. If you added India/Africa on top - with their huge manpower - you'd then have a quasi-superpower, provided you had the logistical and staff capabilities to leverage it.
Without any of that we are just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability.
Sounds about right but I'd love to see you present that one over a few pints in the pubs and clubs of Leave Nation.
"There's nothing special about us. We're not some massive power these days. That's all gone FFS so stop getting all hoarse and misty-eyed about it. We're just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability."
You'll need to be buying otherwise there might be fisticuffs.
Your first sentence is redundant and unnecessarily confrontation which may be why you'd be expecting upset. Otherwise its pretty uncontroversial.
But the first sentence is key. The belief that we are a little bit special is at the heart of Brexit and of much of what has gone wrong with our Covid response.
Everywhere thinks they are a bit special. Sweden, France, Germany, everyone. How they react to feeling a bit special varies but the 'debate' around apparent English exceptionalism is one of the laziest and quite frankly stupidest on the Internet, as seen by how quickly people leap to extreme and usually caricatures of what the other side (each of them) believe.
It frequently results in a rather ridiculous situation where the belief in the level of exceptionalism is itself exceptional.
I regard it is as along the same lines as doddering politicians who bang on about Thatcher, positive and negative, to relive the glory days, and youngsters who ape that as its easier.
By which I mean the things people argue about exist, people with those views exist, but a lot less than suggested and people antibit seem to bang on about it more than the pros.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Personally I would not support a solely contributions based welfare system though I would support more in benefits for those who made more NI contributions into the system.
Immigrants though should have a job to come to first unless they are genuine asylum seekers
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
Well I think that's fair.
If they've contributed then they should get access to contribution based benefits (until that contribution runs out).
But giving benefits to those that have turned up and contributed nothing is unsustainable.
We always had the right to deport people like that under EU rules.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
Locals on council estates permanently on benefits having been paying into a "pot" at all. I would suspect if you add up all the taxes etc of working immigrants v local benefit people it would be obvious.
It is not all or nothing though.
We have some free riders born in this country, that is true. We have hard working people born in this country, that is also true.
We have hard working migrants in this country, that is true. We have some free riders migrating into this country, that is also true.
There is no reason we can't do what most of the world does which is allow in hard working migrants while denying benefits and free riding to the minority who want to exploit the system. What is wrong with that?
Just because a minority do the wrong thing is no reason to tarnish the majority who do not. Just because most people do the right thing is no reason not to try to stop the minority who exploit the system.
There was a guy on the radio over the week-end who had just written a book on London's gang culture. He said that the whole thing is essentially controlled by a bunch of ultra-violent Albanians who essentially are conducting a reign of terror on the estates.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
Britain's superpower status (pre 1950s) derived from the fact it could call upon reflexive loyalty of Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa, and leverage manpower from India - and to a lesser extent East Africa. This allowed it to play at least a 30-40% partner role with the USA, as opposed to the 10% partner role we play today.
If that existed today, the UK would more than double the weight of its army and navy with the "Dominions". Still not a superpower but comfortably exceeding any other Western power, except the USA. If you added India/Africa on top - with their huge manpower - you'd then have a quasi-superpower, provided you had the logistical and staff capabilities to leverage it.
Without any of that we are just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability.
Sounds about right but I'd love to see you present that one over a few pints in the pubs and clubs of Leave Nation.
"There's nothing special about us. We're not some massive power these days. That's all gone FFS so stop getting all hoarse and misty-eyed about it. We're just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability."
You'll need to be buying otherwise there might be fisticuffs.
Your first sentence is redundant and unnecessarily confrontation which may be why you'd be expecting upset. Otherwise its pretty uncontroversial.
But the first sentence is key. The belief that we are a little bit special is at the heart of Brexit and of much of what has gone wrong with our Covid response.
Everywhere thinks they are a bit special. Sweden, France, Germany, everyone. How they react to feeling a bit special varies but the 'debate' around apparent English exceptionalism is one of the laziest and quite frankly stupidest on the Internet, as seen by how quickly people leap to extreme and usually caricatures of what the other side (each of them) believe.
It frequently results in a rather ridiculous situation where the belief in the level of exceptionalism is itself exceptional.
I regard it is as along the same lines as doddering politicians who bang on about Thatcher, positive and negative, to relive the glory days, and youngsters who ape that as its easier.
By which I mean the things people argue about exist, people with those views exist, but a lot less than suggested and people antibit seem to bang on about it more than the pros.
Yes, I've yet to have a conversation with a Swedish person who doesn't mention how much better Sweden is at everything. Even from Swedish people who have lived here for the better part of a decade. 🤷♂️
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
I don't believe those are the only options. I believe in many countries if someone is unable to provide for themselves then they can be assisted to return home, not given a house.
I didn't say they were the only options. However genuine asylum seekers need to have their cases heard. Likewise how do you deport someone if you don't know where they came from?
Asylum seekers are a tiny, tiny fraction of overall migration and are a different subject to eligibility to in work benefits.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Tbh, if we had a contributory benefits system that needed 12 months of contributions to become eligible they wouldn't come in the first place. In Switzerland that's actually what happens in practice. Our benefits system and attachment to the welfare state is at fault.
I'm not opposed to something like the Swiss system. It would certainly "appear" fairer. However I would be interested to know what Switzerland does with their asylum seekers. They must get some.
They have very tough rules and regular deportations. Asylum seekers aren't the problem here, it's low wage workers who need huge subsidies from the state to exist in the UK. Our benefits system is not fit for purpose because the people can't let go of the welfare state. In your earlier scenario what's to stop someone on a tourist visa setting up camp and begging? Is it then our responsibility to house them and pay for them because it's a single mother with children? What kind of pull factor does that create.
Switzerland has figured out how to do benefits (and tax) unfortunately we aren't willing to learn those lessons.
If someone came here on a tourist visa it would be simple to deport as we'd know exactly who they are and where they came from. I don't think there is anything in the law (and the human rights act) that would prevent us from doing so.
I agree with you, you know. I agree that the problem is low wage workers on tax credits and other benefits. In an ideal world nobody working should need to have benefits, although I know housing is always the issue because of how expensive it is in this country relative to wages.
To move to a Swiss style system would be such a massive upheaval - I don't know how it could be done without significant misery in the short term.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Rent some land in a safe country for processing asylum seekers like Australia did in Papua New Guinea. They can be kept free from harm, it's much cheaper to house them there (about 13 times if I recall correctly) and would deter non-genuine claims.
It also means that the working poor in this country might get a chance of government housing.
That sounds like a reasonable idea. Why isn't the Government doing it then? They have an 80 seat majority after all.
Well that's a very good question, one to which I have no idea.
You can call them useless morons, but the fact last government didn't do it, nor will the next one or the one after that regardless of what they put in their manifesto.
There's probably some fear of being called racist, but I think there's a deeper more subconscious desire for this situation to continue among the elite and political class in the West.
Rent some land in a safe country for processing asylum seekers like Australia did in Papua New Guinea. They can be kept free from harm, it's much cheaper to house them there (about 13 times if I recall correctly) and would deter non-genuine claims.
It also means that the working poor in this country might get a chance of government housing.
That sounds like a reasonable idea. Why isn't the Government doing it then? They have an 80 seat majority after all.
Sticking them in camps? Sounds like a terrible idea. Look at what is happening in the US for example.
Because the US does camps badly doesn't mean they can't be done humanely.
However one thing we don't want to copy anyone on is that a work visa is only valid for a specific company as that puts to much power in the hands of an employer
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
We don't know that for a fact.
We can never know it for a fact, but it does seem highly likely.
Considering most of the country that voted "leave" never experienced any real significant EU immigration, I think it's a rather lazy analysis. The areas that received significant EU immigration voted "remain".
Lincolnshire received a lot of Eastern European immigration without transition controls and had one of the highest Leave votes
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
You're creating the 1 in 50,000 scenario. What about the other 49,999?
Not really. There are many more EU citizens here working hard and contributing to this country than doing nothing and claiming benefits. They are paying tax and are entitled to the same benefits as other people.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Tbh, if we had a contributory benefits system that needed 12 months of contributions to become eligible they wouldn't come in the first place. In Switzerland that's actually what happens in practice. Our benefits system and attachment to the welfare state is at fault.
I'm not opposed to something like the Swiss system. It would certainly "appear" fairer. However I would be interested to know what Switzerland does with their asylum seekers. They must get some.
They have very tough rules and regular deportations. Asylum seekers aren't the problem here, it's low wage workers who need huge subsidies from the state to exist in the UK. Our benefits system is not fit for purpose because the people can't let go of the welfare state. In your earlier scenario what's to stop someone on a tourist visa setting up camp and begging? Is it then our responsibility to house them and pay for them because it's a single mother with children? What kind of pull factor does that create.
Switzerland has figured out how to do benefits (and tax) unfortunately we aren't willing to learn those lessons.
If someone came here on a tourist visa it would be simple to deport as we'd know exactly who they are and where they came from. I don't think there is anything in the law (and the human rights act) that would prevent us from doing so.
I agree with you, you know. I agree that the problem is low wage workers on tax credits and other benefits. In an ideal world nobody working should need to have benefits, although I know housing is always the issue because of how expensive it is in this country relative to wages.
To move to a Swiss style system would be such a massive upheaval - I don't know how it could be done without significant misery in the short term.
The only way to reasonably do it is to announce it several years in advance to give people time to get jobs and start the contributions. You would probably need to make contributions cover non working spouses to otherwise you run the risk of them being trapped in a marriage.
I knew that my "kill the first born male child from every household" satire wasn't that far from the current edge of the Overton window. We get weekly Farage videos where he sails out into the channel and practically demands the navy sink boats full of migrants. We've read above that foreigners should be thrown out of the shitebox nobody wanted to live there asylum seeker housing and be deported.
Surely if people want to be that intolerant of people who don't look and sound like them they should move back to Essicksinnit so we can wall them off like we are Kent.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
And what if the population of India doesn't want the criminally insane British in their country? I can see that being unpopular.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
That's the risk you take travelling overseas and you can seek to have savings or pay privately for insurance if it is necessary. Plus there's already a scheme to get people to pay up-front fees for NHS entitlement so that would already be paid for so you would be entitled to NHS treatments.
In my ideal scenario after a few years working here and paying taxes people should be able to claim citizenship which would then entitle them to benefits.
As far as immigration is concerned I'm quite liberal, I couldn't care if its 50,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 per annum who want to move to this country, so long as they all work and pay for themselves. But I would have zero entitlement to benefits including in-work benefits for non-citizens, plus of course charging for the NHS via the scheme that already exists.
I wonder what the reason for the general unpopularity the apps are. Given how much of a big deal has been made that they are decentralized and the government can't track you, what's the aversion? Especially given the likes of Google Maps tracks your every move.
It isn't as if any Western government has suggested implemented a South Korean style spying approach.
1) apathy 2) Many dont have mobile phones at all or ones that can run the app* 3) Many never install apps on their mobile phone and are nervous of doing it 4) Many use their mobile as a landline replacement and dont carry it with them 5) apathy
*https://www.finder.com/uk/mobile-internet-statistics from there only 79% have mobiles in any case by the time you knock off those with older mobiles that cant run the app you are probably getting close to the 60% figure needed for effectiveness anyway
I don't see it being a binary useless/useful transition at 60% or whatever. Even if only 5% use it there is still benefit, especially with the venue check-in system.
There's an interesting mathematical aspect to this. If you assume that the app is perfect then the proportion of contacts found by the app (i.e. it's usefulness) is equal to the square of the proportion of people using the app.
So if 1-in-5 have the app then it will pick up 1-in-25 contacts. The difference between 50% and 60% app coverage is that between 25% and 36% contact coverage.
In the Republic of Ireland they have app downloads for about 40% of the population after hitting 20% on day one. The UK is a bit behind 20% a few days in, so they'll struggle to get much above one third - so perhaps as many as a ninth of contacts will be identified by the app (on the assumption it works perfectly).
This is true if the app and the interactions are randomly distributed, but they're probably not, especially if it's actively being promoted by particular locations where people gather.
Yes, that's true. And you can make a similar point about social interactions outside of a family being mainly intra-generational rather than inter-generational.
However, for the sort of contacts that are least likely to be picked up by paper-based contact tracing (like public transport, say) then I think it's true enough.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
You're presumably assuming those places will accept hosting our penal camps?
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
But you must you are a dedicated member of the party responsible for the outcome, you will go on the doorsteps praising the outcome whatever that may be. Every single Tory member and many of their voters bear full responsibility for the outcomes of the dual crisis that the UK faces.
I have recanted my leave vote if not the reasons for doing so. This is not a crisis caused by leaving the EU - the question on the ballot paper. The democratic mandate was to leave the EU because that was the question asked.
HYUFD's problem is that he mistakes his interpretation of the best interests of the Conservative Party as being the best interests of the UK. If the Tories had polling showing that red wall Tories wanted to kill the first born male child in every household he'd be on here insisting that it had to happen.
The political choices made by the Tories after the referendum are the cataclysm which ultimately will destroy them. You cannot continue as a Conservative and Unionist Party when you choose a policy that destroys the economy and our standing in the world and the union. Lets be honest about this - Brexit is just their excuse to do so. Shagger isn't even a leaver...
However what the red wall voters want only matters if it doesn't impact him. For example the building of thousands of new homes in Epping? God no.
I support the building of needed new homes in Epping with appropriate infrastructure and in brownbelt areas as much as possible
"With appropriate infrastructure" has been the cry of the NIMBY for all of recorded time. New housing is never built with the appropriate infrastructure.
Of course it is and a new school, sports centre, cinema, retail and parking facilities are all part of the Epping Local Plan
Yeah good luck with that. Who's paying for a start?
The council through a council owned development company as it will bring a lot of revenue
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
Ha ha, you do know that we no longer own these countries right? India and countries in Africa are already home to many more refugees than the UK is, do you actually think they would want to start taking in our asylum seekers too?
I knew that my "kill the first born male child from every household" satire wasn't that far from the current edge of the Overton window. We get weekly Farage videos where he sails out into the channel and practically demands the navy sink boats full of migrants. We've read above that foreigners should be thrown out of the shitebox nobody wanted to live there asylum seeker housing and be deported.
Surely if people want to be that intolerant of people who don't look and sound like them they should move back to Essicksinnit so we can wall them off like we are Kent.
When did having secure borders and having a sensible immigration policy that benefitted the country turn into hate speech?
Ironically you're the one dripping with hatred of the white working classes as you can see from your comment about Essex and Kent.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
You're creating the 1 in 50,000 scenario. What about the other 49,999?
Not really. There are many more EU citizens here working hard and contributing to this country than doing nothing and claiming benefits. They are paying tax and are entitled to the same benefits as other people.
Again, once tax credits and other in working benefits are taken into account the picture is a lot fuzzier. Even more so when other benefits such as healthcare provision and education for children are taken into account. I'm not saying they shouldn't come, but we also shouldn't have a benefits system that encourages people to come here and do 16h per week in a minimum wage job to get a whole host of in work benefits. One of the major issues with all of the studies is that the statistics in benefits spending by nationality only look into what comes from the DWP, there is not a lot of information available on the £40bn in wage subsidies that come through HMRC, however we know that eastern Europeans on average work in lower wage jobs and tax credits subsidise those jobs.
As I said, the system is broken, everyone (UK or EU or anywhere else) should be subject to the same rules and benefits eligibility should be on a contributory basis, not universal.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
You're creating the 1 in 50,000 scenario. What about the other 49,999?
Not really. There are many more EU citizens here working hard and contributing to this country than doing nothing and claiming benefits. They are paying tax and are entitled to the same benefits as other people.
No goodies and no baddies. Complicated. Lack of correspondents on the ground for heart rending video. No side to take. Not much UK can do about it. Lack of anyone who knows about it to pontificate their position at length. In short, not suited to rolling news.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
You're creating the 1 in 50,000 scenario. What about the other 49,999?
Not really. There are many more EU citizens here working hard and contributing to this country than doing nothing and claiming benefits. They are paying tax and are entitled to the same benefits as other people.
Again, once tax credits and other in working benefits are taken into account the picture is a lot fuzzier. Even more so when other benefits such as healthcare provision and education for children are taken into account. I'm not saying they shouldn't come, but we also shouldn't have a benefits system that encourages people to come here and do 16h per week in a minimum wage job to get a whole host of in work benefits. One of the major issues with all of the studies is that the statistics in benefits spending by nationality only look into what comes from the DWP, there is not a lot of information available on the £40bn in wage subsidies that come through HMRC, however we know that eastern Europeans on average work in lower wage jobs and tax credits subsidise those jobs.
As I said, the system is broken, everyone (UK or EU or anywhere else) should be subject to the same rules and benefits eligibility should be on a contributory basis, not universal.
I don't seewhy everyone should be on the same entitlement. We have a responsibility to look after our own, we do not have a responsibility to look after everyone from the globe who wants to come here.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
Britain's superpower status (pre 1950s) derived from the fact it could call upon reflexive loyalty of Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa, and leverage manpower from India - and to a lesser extent East Africa. This allowed it to play at least a 30-40% partner role with the USA, as opposed to the 10% partner role we play today.
If that existed today, the UK would more than double the weight of its army and navy with the "Dominions". Still not a superpower but comfortably exceeding any other Western power, except the USA. If you added India/Africa on top - with their huge manpower - you'd then have a quasi-superpower, provided you had the logistical and staff capabilities to leverage it.
Without any of that we are just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability.
Sounds about right but I'd love to see you present that one over a few pints in the pubs and clubs of Leave Nation.
"There's nothing special about us. We're not some massive power these days. That's all gone FFS so stop getting all hoarse and misty-eyed about it. We're just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability."
You'll need to be buying otherwise there might be fisticuffs.
Your first sentence is redundant and unnecessarily confrontation which may be why you'd be expecting upset. Otherwise its pretty uncontroversial.
But the first sentence is key. The belief that we are a little bit special is at the heart of Brexit and of much of what has gone wrong with our Covid response.
But we are special.
Every country is special it its own way. We are not just some utilitarian cog that is interchangeable.
In the landscape and architectural and cultural sense, every country is special in its own way. And every individual person is special in their own way. But no country's population is in any way special. When you randomly or by nationality aggregate groups of people up to large numbers each group is in essence the same. The false belief that this is not so lies at the root of much misapprehension and mischief, and in extremis of much evil.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
And what if the population of India doesn't want the criminally insane British in their country? I can see that being unpopular.
I can't see why they wouldn't - they have prisons for their own criminals. As for insane, those are put in mental institutions (or should be), not prisons. We are talking about modern prisons and asylum processing centres providing hundreds of good jobs in guarding, administration, catering etc.. If India didn't want those jobs, another country would. For example, Nepal, Pakistan - etc.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
You're creating the 1 in 50,000 scenario. What about the other 49,999?
Not really. There are many more EU citizens here working hard and contributing to this country than doing nothing and claiming benefits. They are paying tax and are entitled to the same benefits as other people.
"Other measures in the new bill include a bridging benefit that will allow EU immigrants with no income a month's worth of rent and food money while they organize their return home, as well as a loan for their travelling expenses."
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Tbh, if we had a contributory benefits system that needed 12 months of contributions to become eligible they wouldn't come in the first place. In Switzerland that's actually what happens in practice. Our benefits system and attachment to the welfare state is at fault.
I'm not opposed to something like the Swiss system. It would certainly "appear" fairer. However I would be interested to know what Switzerland does with their asylum seekers. They must get some.
They have very tough rules and regular deportations. Asylum seekers aren't the problem here, it's low wage workers who need huge subsidies from the state to exist in the UK. Our benefits system is not fit for purpose because the people can't let go of the welfare state. In your earlier scenario what's to stop someone on a tourist visa setting up camp and begging? Is it then our responsibility to house them and pay for them because it's a single mother with children? What kind of pull factor does that create.
Switzerland has figured out how to do benefits (and tax) unfortunately we aren't willing to learn those lessons.
If someone came here on a tourist visa it would be simple to deport as we'd know exactly who they are and where they came from. I don't think there is anything in the law (and the human rights act) that would prevent us from doing so.
I agree with you, you know. I agree that the problem is low wage workers on tax credits and other benefits. In an ideal world nobody working should need to have benefits, although I know housing is always the issue because of how expensive it is in this country relative to wages.
To move to a Swiss style system would be such a massive upheaval - I don't know how it could be done without significant misery in the short term.
I'd go for a 5 or 7 year phase in period and require 12 months of work in the previous 24 months for eligibility of 12-24 months of benefits at 60% (up to £2500 per month, taxable) of your previous average salary. It generous when you have it but you don't need it often.
I wonder what the reason for the general unpopularity the apps are. Given how much of a big deal has been made that they are decentralized and the government can't track you, what's the aversion? Especially given the likes of Google Maps tracks your every move.
It isn't as if any Western government has suggested implemented a South Korean style spying approach.
1) apathy 2) Many dont have mobile phones at all or ones that can run the app* 3) Many never install apps on their mobile phone and are nervous of doing it 4) Many use their mobile as a landline replacement and dont carry it with them 5) apathy
*https://www.finder.com/uk/mobile-internet-statistics from there only 79% have mobiles in any case by the time you knock off those with older mobiles that cant run the app you are probably getting close to the 60% figure needed for effectiveness anyway
I don't see it being a binary useless/useful transition at 60% or whatever. Even if only 5% use it there is still benefit, especially with the venue check-in system.
There's an interesting mathematical aspect to this. If you assume that the app is perfect then the proportion of contacts found by the app (i.e. it's usefulness) is equal to the square of the proportion of people using the app.
So if 1-in-5 have the app then it will pick up 1-in-25 contacts. The difference between 50% and 60% app coverage is that between 25% and 36% contact coverage.
In the Republic of Ireland they have app downloads for about 40% of the population after hitting 20% on day one. The UK is a bit behind 20% a few days in, so they'll struggle to get much above one third - so perhaps as many as a ninth of contacts will be identified by the app (on the assumption it works perfectly).
This is true if the app and the interactions are randomly distributed, but they're probably not, especially if it's actively being promoted by particular locations where people gather.
Yes, that's true. And you can make a similar point about social interactions outside of a family being mainly intra-generational rather than inter-generational.
However, for the sort of contacts that are least likely to be picked up by paper-based contact tracing (like public transport, say) then I think it's true enough.
I think even public transport will tend to have concentration of both demographics and location; London buses will have lots of young London people, buses at off-peak times in small towns will have lots of old people (if they're still going out, dunno) etc. So as long as app use correlates with... something... distribution should be quite lumpy and people with the app should disproportionately interact with other people with the app (and vice versa).
At the weekend the ONS showed that travel abroad was a significant contributor to the spread of Covid. So R5L gives 30 minutes to "journalist" Simon Calder to tell you how to go abroad.
No goodies and no baddies. Complicated. Lack of correspondents on the ground for heart rending video. No side to take. Not much UK can do about it. Lack of anyone who knows about it to pontificate their position at length. In short, not suited to rolling news.
And, no-one in the UK cares?
We are very much (all sides of politics here) interested largely in a domestic circle-jerk when it comes to the world and seeing everything through our own prism.
Simon Calder ends his peroration by pointing out you are told not to travel by train for fun. But he is and urges everyone to do so too. I do enjoy being annoyed.
I suspect the Trumpian tax revelations will do no harm at all to his existing base. Many Americans seem to resent paying even 1¢ in tax. The more rabid right-wingers, Qanon brigade, etc, etc, will probably admire a man who foxed the system to the point he managed to pay no tax at all.
With that voter base, it probably a plus
Yes but that voter base is (a) already sewn up and (b) nowhere near enough to win. The question is how the independent white voters who swung to Trump in 2016 in sufficient numbers to tip some states his way feel about it.
If I was a public sector worker or a small business owner not rich enough to employ fancy accountants or a middle manager who gets thumped for tax how would I feel about it? Some might take it as evidence of how "clever" he is to play the system but others might be pissed and those are the ones that Biden is going for.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
And what if the population of India doesn't want the criminally insane British in their country? I can see that being unpopular.
I can't see why they wouldn't - they have prisons for their own criminals. As for insane, those are put in mental institutions (or should be), not prisons. We are talking about modern prisons and asylum processing centres providing hundreds of good jobs in guarding, administration, catering etc.. If India didn't want those jobs, another country would. For example, Nepal, Pakistan - etc.
@Benpointer@OnlyLivingBoy - to answer your question - yes. Do you think the Governments of those own nations would prefer their populations to rifle through dustbins to eat rather than have good solid jobs?
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
Britain's superpower status (pre 1950s) derived from the fact it could call upon reflexive loyalty of Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa, and leverage manpower from India - and to a lesser extent East Africa. This allowed it to play at least a 30-40% partner role with the USA, as opposed to the 10% partner role we play today.
If that existed today, the UK would more than double the weight of its army and navy with the "Dominions". Still not a superpower but comfortably exceeding any other Western power, except the USA. If you added India/Africa on top - with their huge manpower - you'd then have a quasi-superpower, provided you had the logistical and staff capabilities to leverage it.
Without any of that we are just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability.
Sounds about right but I'd love to see you present that one over a few pints in the pubs and clubs of Leave Nation.
"There's nothing special about us. We're not some massive power these days. That's all gone FFS so stop getting all hoarse and misty-eyed about it. We're just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability."
You'll need to be buying otherwise there might be fisticuffs.
Your first sentence is redundant and unnecessarily confrontation which may be why you'd be expecting upset. Otherwise its pretty uncontroversial.
But the first sentence is key. The belief that we are a little bit special is at the heart of Brexit and of much of what has gone wrong with our Covid response.
But we are special.
Every country is special it its own way. We are not just some utilitarian cog that is interchangeable.
In the landscape and architectural and cultural sense, every country is special in its own way. And every individual person is special in their own way. But no country's population is in any way special. When you randomly or by nationality aggregate groups of people up to large numbers each group is in essence the same. The false belief that this is not so lies at the root of much misapprehension and mischief, and in extremis of much evil.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
You're creating the 1 in 50,000 scenario. What about the other 49,999?
Not really. There are many more EU citizens here working hard and contributing to this country than doing nothing and claiming benefits. They are paying tax and are entitled to the same benefits as other people.
Germany also has an anti-immigrant vote, the fact that politicians pander to it doesn't tell you anything either way about whether the pandering has a good factual basis.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
Britain's superpower status (pre 1950s) derived from the fact it could call upon reflexive loyalty of Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa, and leverage manpower from India - and to a lesser extent East Africa. This allowed it to play at least a 30-40% partner role with the USA, as opposed to the 10% partner role we play today.
If that existed today, the UK would more than double the weight of its army and navy with the "Dominions". Still not a superpower but comfortably exceeding any other Western power, except the USA. If you added India/Africa on top - with their huge manpower - you'd then have a quasi-superpower, provided you had the logistical and staff capabilities to leverage it.
Without any of that we are just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability.
Sounds about right but I'd love to see you present that one over a few pints in the pubs and clubs of Leave Nation.
"There's nothing special about us. We're not some massive power these days. That's all gone FFS so stop getting all hoarse and misty-eyed about it. We're just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability."
You'll need to be buying otherwise there might be fisticuffs.
Your first sentence is redundant and unnecessarily confrontation which may be why you'd be expecting upset. Otherwise its pretty uncontroversial.
But the first sentence is key. The belief that we are a little bit special is at the heart of Brexit and of much of what has gone wrong with our Covid response.
But we are special.
Every country is special it its own way. We are not just some utilitarian cog that is interchangeable.
In the landscape and architectural and cultural sense, every country is special in its own way. And every individual person is special in their own way. But no country's population is in any way special. When you randomly or by nationality aggregate groups of people up to large numbers each group is in essence the same. The false belief that this is not so lies at the root of much misapprehension and mischief, and in extremis of much evil.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
And what if the population of India doesn't want the criminally insane British in their country? I can see that being unpopular.
I can't see why they wouldn't - they have prisons for their own criminals. As for insane, those are put in mental institutions (or should be), not prisons. We are talking about modern prisons and asylum processing centres providing hundreds of good jobs in guarding, administration, catering etc.. If India didn't want those jobs, another country would. For example, Nepal, Pakistan - etc.
@Benpointer@OnlyLivingBoy - to answer your question - yes. Do you think the Governments of those own nations would prefer their populations to rifle through dustbins to eat rather than have good solid jobs?
Put yourself in their position... What happens to the UK asylum seekers who lose their case? Who is responsible for deporting them back to their country of origin?
I think @Cyclefree's idea of placing the asylum centres on the Falklands might have more mileage.
No goodies and no baddies. Complicated. Lack of correspondents on the ground for heart rending video. No side to take. Not much UK can do about it. Lack of anyone who knows about it to pontificate their position at length. In short, not suited to rolling news.
And, no-one in the UK cares?
We are very much (all sides of politics here) interested largely in a domestic circle-jerk when it comes to the world and seeing everything through our own prism.
Not saying people aren't interested. More a criticism of the decline of journalism since rolling news. I want to know more. Unfortunately it seems a complex situation which would require concentration, thought and a nuanced view. So it isn't covered.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
You're creating the 1 in 50,000 scenario. What about the other 49,999?
Not really. There are many more EU citizens here working hard and contributing to this country than doing nothing and claiming benefits. They are paying tax and are entitled to the same benefits as other people.
Germany also has an anti-immigrant vote, the fact that politicians pander to it doesn't tell you anything either way about whether the pandering has a good factual basis.
Germany's anti immigrant vote isnt driven by eu migration though whereas that bill was all about benefits to EU citizens. I am not therefore sure it was pandering to AfD voters. In addition isn't the eu rule that you can't treat eu citizens differently to your own? If so why is Germany allowed to do this?
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
And what if the population of India doesn't want the criminally insane British in their country? I can see that being unpopular.
I can't see why they wouldn't - they have prisons for their own criminals. As for insane, those are put in mental institutions (or should be), not prisons. We are talking about modern prisons and asylum processing centres providing hundreds of good jobs in guarding, administration, catering etc.. If India didn't want those jobs, another country would. For example, Nepal, Pakistan - etc.
@Benpointer@OnlyLivingBoy - to answer your question - yes. Do you think the Governments of those own nations would prefer their populations to rifle through dustbins to eat rather than have good solid jobs?
Put yourself in their position... What happens to the UK asylum seekers who lose their case? Who is responsible for deporting them back to their country of origin?
They would depart - unless they think their employment opportunities in a poor part of India are better than those in their country of origin. But you are assuming that asylum seekers without a valid case would flock to India in similar numbers than they flock to the UK - I can't see that this would be the case, for obvious reasons.
I suspect the Trumpian tax revelations will do no harm at all to his existing base. Many Americans seem to resent paying even 1¢ in tax. The more rabid right-wingers, Qanon brigade, etc, etc, will probably admire a man who foxed the system to the point he managed to pay no tax at all.
With that voter base, it probably a plus
Yes but that voter base is (a) already sewn up and (b) nowhere near enough to win. The question is how the independent white voters who swung to Trump in 2016 in sufficient numbers to tip some states his way feel about it.
If I was a public sector worker or a small business owner not rich enough to employ fancy accountants or a middle manager who gets thumped for tax how would I feel about it? Some might take it as evidence of how "clever" he is to play the system but others might be pissed and those are the ones that Biden is going for.
And presumably there are a large number of independent voters who will reflect on how the armed forces, the police etc. are going to be paid for if everyone was as slopey-shouldered as Trump.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
It's remarkable how many Eastern Europeans around here know the benefits system better than the locals do.
But they are more likely to be working and less likely to be claiming benefits than the indigenous population on average.
I have no problems with people coming over here to work, but think there should be no recourse to benefits whatsoever. Make it clean and simple, benefits for citizens nobody else, if anyone can't support themselves then they should go home and draw on their home nation's benefit system, but if they can then I have no problems with anyone who is self-sufficient coming here.
Why? They are paying taxes same as everyone else. Say you come over to the UK with your family then you have some serious health issue and can't work for six months. Seems reasonable your family doesn't starve in the meantime. You might be too sick to travel back home, your kids might be settled in school - they might not even speak the language of your home country well enough to easily integrate back. You might have married a local. In the real world, EU nationals and other foreign born people are integrated into their local communities, making a real contribution to this country, they don't deserve to be treated like a burden, especially since they're not.
You're creating the 1 in 50,000 scenario. What about the other 49,999?
Not really. There are many more EU citizens here working hard and contributing to this country than doing nothing and claiming benefits. They are paying tax and are entitled to the same benefits as other people.
Germany also has an anti-immigrant vote, the fact that politicians pander to it doesn't tell you anything either way about whether the pandering has a good factual basis.
Germany's anti immigrant vote isnt driven by eu migration though whereas that bill was all about benefits to EU citizens. I am not therefore sure it was pandering to AfD voters. In addition isn't the eu rule that you can't treat eu citizens differently to your own? If so why is Germany allowed to do this?
Switzerland effectively does something similar. Health insurance is compulsory, but certain (cheapest) plans are only available to Swiss citizens.
As the future of the BBC is being debated this week, thanks to Sunday Times splash, it is right we ask: who on earth canned Andrew Neil's two politics shows?
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
And what if the population of India doesn't want the criminally insane British in their country? I can see that being unpopular.
I can't see why they wouldn't - they have prisons for their own criminals. As for insane, those are put in mental institutions (or should be), not prisons. We are talking about modern prisons and asylum processing centres providing hundreds of good jobs in guarding, administration, catering etc.. If India didn't want those jobs, another country would. For example, Nepal, Pakistan - etc.
@Benpointer@OnlyLivingBoy - to answer your question - yes. Do you think the Governments of those own nations would prefer their populations to rifle through dustbins to eat rather than have good solid jobs?
Put yourself in their position... What happens to the UK asylum seekers who lose their case? Who is responsible for deporting them back to their country of origin?
I think @Cyclefree's idea of placing the asylum centres on the Falklands might have more mileage.
I think putting them in the Falklands would be rather cruel - how is a genuine asylum seeker to get to a remote Island in the South Atlantic without severe danger to life and limb? It is dinghies in the channel on speed. The idea is to put them in places where genuine asylum seekers can reach them easily.
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
And what if the population of India doesn't want the criminally insane British in their country? I can see that being unpopular.
I can't see why they wouldn't - they have prisons for their own criminals. As for insane, those are put in mental institutions (or should be), not prisons. We are talking about modern prisons and asylum processing centres providing hundreds of good jobs in guarding, administration, catering etc.. If India didn't want those jobs, another country would. For example, Nepal, Pakistan - etc.
Why India? St Kilda and a few other islands around the UK are deserted. We could have a couple of Alcatrazes.
We could also pander to the nuttier right-wing and save money by not building the prisons and just dumping the inmates there - they can always eat grass... or each other.....
What a deterrent! That would work!! Crime and illegal immigration drop to zero.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
Britain's superpower status (pre 1950s) derived from the fact it could call upon reflexive loyalty of Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa, and leverage manpower from India - and to a lesser extent East Africa. This allowed it to play at least a 30-40% partner role with the USA, as opposed to the 10% partner role we play today.
If that existed today, the UK would more than double the weight of its army and navy with the "Dominions". Still not a superpower but comfortably exceeding any other Western power, except the USA. If you added India/Africa on top - with their huge manpower - you'd then have a quasi-superpower, provided you had the logistical and staff capabilities to leverage it.
Without any of that we are just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability.
Sounds about right but I'd love to see you present that one over a few pints in the pubs and clubs of Leave Nation.
"There's nothing special about us. We're not some massive power these days. That's all gone FFS so stop getting all hoarse and misty-eyed about it. We're just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability."
You'll need to be buying otherwise there might be fisticuffs.
Your first sentence is redundant and unnecessarily confrontation which may be why you'd be expecting upset. Otherwise its pretty uncontroversial.
But the first sentence is key. The belief that we are a little bit special is at the heart of Brexit and of much of what has gone wrong with our Covid response.
But we are special.
Every country is special it its own way. We are not just some utilitarian cog that is interchangeable.
In the landscape and architectural and cultural sense, every country is special in its own way. And every individual person is special in their own way. But no country's population is in any way special. When you randomly or by nationality aggregate groups of people up to large numbers each group is in essence the same. The false belief that this is not so lies at the root of much misapprehension and mischief, and in extremis of much evil.
That's just not true.
Prove it.
Culturally every country is different. The idea that we are in aggregate essentially the same is preposterous bullshit.
If you think we are in aggregate no different to Americans, or in aggregate no different to Egyptians or in aggregate no different to the Chinese or in aggregate no different to Russans then I would suggest that you broaden your horizons and consider learning about elsewhere.
Simon Calder ends his peroration by pointing out you are told not to travel by train for fun. But he is and urges everyone to do so too. I do enjoy being annoyed.
Is it not coming up to Guy Fawkes night quite soon? Just a thought.
I suspect the Trumpian tax revelations will do no harm at all to his existing base. Many Americans seem to resent paying even 1¢ in tax. The more rabid right-wingers, Qanon brigade, etc, etc, will probably admire a man who foxed the system to the point he managed to pay no tax at all.
With that voter base, it probably a plus
Yes but that voter base is (a) already sewn up and (b) nowhere near enough to win. The question is how the independent white voters who swung to Trump in 2016 in sufficient numbers to tip some states his way feel about it.
If I was a public sector worker or a small business owner not rich enough to employ fancy accountants or a middle manager who gets thumped for tax how would I feel about it? Some might take it as evidence of how "clever" he is to play the system but others might be pissed and those are the ones that Biden is going for.
And presumably there are a large number of independent voters who will reflect on how the armed forces, the police etc. are going to be paid for if everyone was as slopey-shouldered as Trump.
You'd like to think so but I am wary of assuming that I think like an American. I think its a very common mistake to assume that because we speak roughly the same language we have the same view on things. We clearly don't.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
And what if the population of India doesn't want the criminally insane British in their country? I can see that being unpopular.
I can't see why they wouldn't - they have prisons for their own criminals. As for insane, those are put in mental institutions (or should be), not prisons. We are talking about modern prisons and asylum processing centres providing hundreds of good jobs in guarding, administration, catering etc.. If India didn't want those jobs, another country would. For example, Nepal, Pakistan - etc.
Well for a start presumably because we would be imposing British Law on sovereign Indian territory. They may prefer to Take Back Control.
No goodies and no baddies. Complicated. Lack of correspondents on the ground for heart rending video. No side to take. Not much UK can do about it. Lack of anyone who knows about it to pontificate their position at length. In short, not suited to rolling news.
And, no-one in the UK cares?
We are very much (all sides of politics here) interested largely in a domestic circle-jerk when it comes to the world and seeing everything through our own prism.
Quite reasonably too.
Its also the same all over the globe. Every country pays more attention to themselves and to countries they can relate to.
Much has been made in the past about how much attention we pay to America, but what often gets over looked is how much attention relatively the Americans pay to us too, compared to other similar sized countries, which makes sense because we share a language and many cultural artifacts.
One of my favourite songs is We Didn't Start The Fire, where Billy Joel sings through the major news stories of his life until then - naturally its very American-centric and has many Soviet references too considering the era it covers, but by my count 8 of the 118 involve news or entertainment coming from Britain.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
And what if the population of India doesn't want the criminally insane British in their country? I can see that being unpopular.
I can't see why they wouldn't - they have prisons for their own criminals. As for insane, those are put in mental institutions (or should be), not prisons. We are talking about modern prisons and asylum processing centres providing hundreds of good jobs in guarding, administration, catering etc.. If India didn't want those jobs, another country would. For example, Nepal, Pakistan - etc.
@Benpointer@OnlyLivingBoy - to answer your question - yes. Do you think the Governments of those own nations would prefer their populations to rifle through dustbins to eat rather than have good solid jobs?
Put yourself in their position... What happens to the UK asylum seekers who lose their case? Who is responsible for deporting them back to their country of origin?
I think @Cyclefree's idea of placing the asylum centres on the Falklands might have more mileage.
The Bennies would rather join Argentina than submit to that. It's a fucking stupid idea that would be both impractical and incredibly expensive.
Whilst its fascinating to see @HYUFD waxing lyrical about the joys of free trade and EFTA his wing of his party have delusionally told us that EFTA/EEA and EU are the same thing. So we can't possibly be EEA members as that makes us a "vassal state".
It will be entertaining to watch the about face as the realities of the giant shit sandwich they are now handing to leave supporters are understood. You see that EFTA - that one we demonised. Thats a really good outcome for us that it. And having to accept rules made by the EU that EFTA have no say in is absolutely not us being rule takers, and is definitely better than making those rules as we used to do.
I mean yes absolutely and I appreciate you have recanted but between you and @HYUFD, only one of you had the foresight at the time to realise what a shitshow this would be and one didn't.
You are correct in that if I recall Rochdale voted Leave while I voted Remain, now I am a democrat and accepted the result but on polling day 2016 it was me who voted Remain in the Referendum, it was Rochdale who voted Leave so I am not going to take lectures from him about being responsible for all the consequences of Brexit
*giggles*. I voted to leave the EU. As I keep pointing out the EEA is not the EU. As you keep pointing out "naah I don't care about anything that isn't my perceived interests of the Conservative Party and if that brings millions to ruin they voted for it".
Leaving the EU is not our problem. Leaving the EEA and CU are our problems. We could have delivered the referendum, rejoined EFTA and by now be a sizeable non-EU player in the EEA forcing them to open up trade. Instead, narrow minded partisan fools like your good self have literally cheered on this fiasco. "Its all about stopping migration". So stop migration then - as we always could. Under the existing EU/EEA rules. No job, no right to remain.
Of course had Blair imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries for 7 years from 2007 as Germany did for instance much of the resentment over uncontrolled immigration would never have arrived in the first place
Or if Blair / Cameron heck even Boris had moved our welfare system to something that required contributions prior to payment...
Yes the current system where someone can appear penniless from another country with children, get free healthcare and benefits and go straight to the top of the housing list because they have the greatest need is complete madness.
That's also Daily Mail bollocks and completely untrue.
My missus who worked in the housing department in a small Northern town can confirm first hand it is actually true.
But of course anyone stating facts these days must have got it from the Daily Mail.
Well they aren't facts, so there's that.
EU citizens who come here without a job are not simply entitled to benefits automatically. That's not how it works.
On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing? What is the alternative, throwing them out on the street?
Anyway we're out of the EU now. I'm sure the situation will improve. Spoiler: it won't.
The people being housed were not from the EU, some were asylum seekers and some were not.
"On a separate note, are you suggesting that women with children should not be prioritised for housing?"
Not foreign women with children no, it creates endless demand and the locals will get nothing. What's the point of paying into a pot for years and never be able to receive one of the most basic services?
There is no "pot" used to pay benefits. You pay tax which the government spends. NI is just a type of tax.
In some other countries benefits are paid for using an insurance system. That is not so in the UK.
I know that.
My point was that those that have paid tax for years should get priority over housing compared to those that turned up yesterday.
Do you want to live in a town that has mothers and children begging on the street?
Lol sure the only choice is to give them all the government housing rather than stopping them coming here in the first place and deporting those that manage to turn up.
Genuine asylum seekers can not and should not be deported until their cases have been heard. Are you suggested we take no asylum seekers?
Asylum processing centres shouldn't be in the UK - that way deportation would be automatic.
Out of interest, where would you put them @Luckyguy1983 ?
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
You're presumably assuming those places will accept hosting our penal camps?
Ironic that the country we set up as a penal colony is now intent on setting them up elsewhere.
Oh well, she'll just have to wait until 2024 to get the Trump Party endorsement. GOP have lost it totally.
Whatever happens in November we might be looking at Ivanka vs Kamala next cycle.
I very much doubt it!
After November I seriously hope the Trump name will be very damaged goods. Ivanka will be about as popular next year as Rebecca Long Bailey is with Labour.
People haven't accepted that Brexit means the UK being a client of the EU across the areas that agreement covers. This reluctance to accept reality has included Remainers as well as Leavers. Right now the decision is between minimal agreement and no agreement on anything to ensure no client status applies. No-one voted Leave to be controlled. Eventually we will probably agree to quite a lot on EU terms because it's better to have agreement than have no agreement when agreement is possible. That can be seen to be a "close relationship", albeit as a client.
Given the 52% to 48% result was pretty close anyway an EFTA style relationship is probably the likely long term outcome of our relationship with the EU, however that would require a Sunak or Starmer premiership rather than a Boris premiership in all likelihood to get there
I agree. But the EFTA style relationship won't be a comfortable one for a UK (if it still exists) with a well developed sense of self-importance.
Britain is not a superpower like the US, China and increasingly India and should not act like one however it is a medium sized power alongside France, Germany, Japan, Brazil and Russia and still has a role to play as a G7, G20, NATO and UN Security Council member
Britain's superpower status (pre 1950s) derived from the fact it could call upon reflexive loyalty of Canada, NZ, Australia and South Africa, and leverage manpower from India - and to a lesser extent East Africa. This allowed it to play at least a 30-40% partner role with the USA, as opposed to the 10% partner role we play today.
If that existed today, the UK would more than double the weight of its army and navy with the "Dominions". Still not a superpower but comfortably exceeding any other Western power, except the USA. If you added India/Africa on top - with their huge manpower - you'd then have a quasi-superpower, provided you had the logistical and staff capabilities to leverage it.
Without any of that we are just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability.
Sounds about right but I'd love to see you present that one over a few pints in the pubs and clubs of Leave Nation.
"There's nothing special about us. We're not some massive power these days. That's all gone FFS so stop getting all hoarse and misty-eyed about it. We're just a leading European military with blue-water deployment capability."
You'll need to be buying otherwise there might be fisticuffs.
Your first sentence is redundant and unnecessarily confrontation which may be why you'd be expecting upset. Otherwise its pretty uncontroversial.
But the first sentence is key. The belief that we are a little bit special is at the heart of Brexit and of much of what has gone wrong with our Covid response.
Everywhere thinks they are a bit special. Sweden, France, Germany, everyone. How they react to feeling a bit special varies but the 'debate' around apparent English exceptionalism is one of the laziest and quite frankly stupidest on the Internet, as seen by how quickly people leap to extreme and usually caricatures of what the other side (each of them) believe.
It frequently results in a rather ridiculous situation where the belief in the level of exceptionalism is itself exceptional.
I regard it is as along the same lines as doddering politicians who bang on about Thatcher, positive and negative, to relive the glory days, and youngsters who ape that as its easier.
By which I mean the things people argue about exist, people with those views exist, but a lot less than suggested and people antibit seem to bang on about it more than the pros.
Well that's right but it's also wrong. Yes, all countries probably do believe they are special but if so they are all mistaken. Not about things like food and landscape. I'm not talking about stuff like that. I'm talking about populations believing they are intrinsically better than other populations. More hard working, say, or intelligent. Or braver. More robust. Friendlier. More tolerant. Whatever. All of that is bollocks. We're all the same. So the question is, are "we" - the English - more susceptible to this toxic sort of exceptionalism than most others. I think we are. The evidence is all around us. Why is this? I don't know. It's hard to measure and it's hard to diagnose. My sense is that it has something to do with Empire - that we quite recently ruled 25% of the globe - and with WW2 when we stood alone and eventually prevailed in the defining event of the 20th century, the event which shaped the modern world.
Probably one in India, one in Africa. I'd also put prisons for violent criminals in the same place. That way you can be taking prisoners from the UK, and returning successful asylum applicants back to the UK.
And what if the population of India doesn't want the criminally insane British in their country? I can see that being unpopular.
I can't see why they wouldn't - they have prisons for their own criminals. As for insane, those are put in mental institutions (or should be), not prisons. We are talking about modern prisons and asylum processing centres providing hundreds of good jobs in guarding, administration, catering etc.. If India didn't want those jobs, another country would. For example, Nepal, Pakistan - etc.
Why India? St Kilda and a few other islands around the UK are deserted. We could have a couple of Alcatrazes.
We could also pander to the nuttier right-wing and save money by not building the prisons and just dumping the inmates there - they can always eat grass... or each other.....
What a deterrent! That would work!! Crime and illegal immigration drop to zero.
Not.
I'm not against the idea, but it still has the problem of genuine asylum seekers getting there, and I'm not sure any of our abandoned islands are right for a huge processing centre and prison. Also, we wouldn't be giving any other countries a leg up, or benefit from the cheaper labour costs there.
Comments
I wouldn't give them priority for housing either, it should be the poor sods on the checkout at Asda on minimum wage.
Working immigrants are great, which is why residency should depend on having a job greater than £30k (extra if you have family). The idea that we're a charity for the world's poor and needy is complete madness.
All those factors make you more vulnerable, so it makes sense to prioritise them in the current system, in my opinion.
This has to end, what the hell are the Tories doing about it?
I'm sure I actually called it on this site at 11am on the day of the referendum when my friend phoned up and said people were coming in from the housing estate where she was on duty who had never voted before and didn't know what to do.
https://youtu.be/f-0XEHt9P_s
Switzerland has figured out how to do benefits (and tax) unfortunately we aren't willing to learn those lessons.
So if 1-in-5 have the app then it will pick up 1-in-25 contacts. The difference between 50% and 60% app coverage is that between 25% and 36% contact coverage.
In the Republic of Ireland they have app downloads for about 40% of the population after hitting 20% on day one. The UK is a bit behind 20% a few days in, so they'll struggle to get much above one third - so perhaps as many as a ninth of contacts will be identified by the app (on the assumption it works perfectly).
Who let those guys in?
Why are they still here?
It also means that the working poor in this country might get a chance of government housing.
So R5L gives 30 minutes to "journalist" Simon Calder to tell you how to go abroad.
If they've contributed then they should get access to contribution based benefits (until that contribution runs out).
But giving benefits to those that have turned up and contributed nothing is unsustainable.
It was always within the power of the HMG to address immigration. The Tories have been in power for 10 years and done nothing about it. Probably because they are in hoc to business interests who benefit from the supply of cheap labour.
It frequently results in a rather ridiculous situation where the belief in the level of exceptionalism is itself exceptional.
I regard it is as along the same lines as doddering politicians who bang on about Thatcher, positive and negative, to relive the glory days, and youngsters who ape that as its easier.
By which I mean the things people argue about exist, people with those views exist, but a lot less than suggested and people antibit seem to bang on about it more than the pros.
Immigrants though should have a job to come to first unless they are genuine asylum seekers
I agree with you, you know. I agree that the problem is low wage workers on tax credits and other benefits. In an ideal world nobody working should need to have benefits, although I know housing is always the issue because of how expensive it is in this country relative to wages.
To move to a Swiss style system would be such a massive upheaval - I don't know how it could be done without significant misery in the short term.
You can call them useless morons, but the fact last government didn't do it, nor will the next one or the one after that regardless of what they put in their manifesto.
There's probably some fear of being called racist, but I think there's a deeper more subconscious desire for this situation to continue among the elite and political class in the West.
However one thing we don't want to copy anyone on is that a work visa is only valid for a specific company as that puts to much power in the hands of an employer
He's a menace.
https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/1310538521338314753?s=20
Surely if people want to be that intolerant of people who don't look and sound like them they should move back to Essicksinnit so we can wall them off like we are Kent.
I can see that being unpopular.
In my ideal scenario after a few years working here and paying taxes people should be able to claim citizenship which would then entitle them to benefits.
As far as immigration is concerned I'm quite liberal, I couldn't care if its 50,000 or 300,000 or 500,000 per annum who want to move to this country, so long as they all work and pay for themselves. But I would have zero entitlement to benefits including in-work benefits for non-citizens, plus of course charging for the NHS via the scheme that already exists.
However, for the sort of contacts that are least likely to be picked up by paper-based contact tracing (like public transport, say) then I think it's true enough.
Ironically you're the one dripping with hatred of the white working classes as you can see from your comment about Essex and Kent.
As I said, the system is broken, everyone (UK or EU or anywhere else) should be subject to the same rules and benefits eligibility should be on a contributory basis, not universal.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-limits-eu-citizens-access-to-benefits/a-36026606
In short, not suited to rolling news.
"Other measures in the new bill include a bridging benefit that will allow EU immigrants with no income a month's worth of rent and food money while they organize their return home, as well as a loan for their travelling expenses."
The death pool is still in play.
We are very much (all sides of politics here) interested largely in a domestic circle-jerk when it comes to the world and seeing everything through our own prism.
I do enjoy being annoyed.
If I was a public sector worker or a small business owner not rich enough to employ fancy accountants or a middle manager who gets thumped for tax how would I feel about it? Some might take it as evidence of how "clever" he is to play the system but others might be pissed and those are the ones that Biden is going for.
I think @Cyclefree's idea of placing the asylum centres on the Falklands might have more mileage.
I want to know more. Unfortunately it seems a complex situation which would require concentration, thought and a nuanced view. So it isn't covered.
What were they thinking?
Are they still in post?
I think we need some answers.
We could also pander to the nuttier right-wing and save money by not building the prisons and just dumping the inmates there - they can always eat grass... or each other.....
What a deterrent! That would work!! Crime and illegal immigration drop to zero.
Not.
If you think we are in aggregate no different to Americans, or in aggregate no different to Egyptians or in aggregate no different to the Chinese or in aggregate no different to Russans then I would suggest that you broaden your horizons and consider learning about elsewhere.
They may prefer to Take Back Control.
Its also the same all over the globe. Every country pays more attention to themselves and to countries they can relate to.
Much has been made in the past about how much attention we pay to America, but what often gets over looked is how much attention relatively the Americans pay to us too, compared to other similar sized countries, which makes sense because we share a language and many cultural artifacts.
One of my favourite songs is We Didn't Start The Fire, where Billy Joel sings through the major news stories of his life until then - naturally its very American-centric and has many Soviet references too considering the era it covers, but by my count 8 of the 118 involve news or entertainment coming from Britain.
Whatever happens in November we might be looking at Ivanka vs Kamala next cycle.
After November I seriously hope the Trump name will be very damaged goods. Ivanka will be about as popular next year as Rebecca Long Bailey is with Labour.