politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It looks as though Cameron will try to get referendum out o

The significance of these words, particularly the closing words, will not be lost on Sepp Blatter, for all the bravado at the press conference:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/32698190

"Away from the press conference, the US department of Justice has released a statement to the media saying 14 defendants have been charged with "racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies" over a 24-year period.

Four individual defendants and two corporate defendants have pleaded guilty.

Acting US attorney Kelly T Currie said: "After decades of what the indictment alleges to be brazen corruption, organised international soccer needs a new start.

"It needs a new chance for its governing institutions to provide honest oversight and support of a sport that is beloved across the world, increasingly so here in the United States.

"Let me be clear: this indictment is not the final chapter in our investigation." "

Morris_Dancer said:

Potential ballot options:
1) Retain membership of the EU
2) Leave the EU
3) Invade France

Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, did AV have a Yes/No choice, or was it to cross AV or FPTP?

I think it was Yes/No, but can't quite recall.

As someone who's mind is slipping and siding between 1 and 2, option 3 looks the best there.

Pulpstar said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Potential ballot options:
1) Retain membership of the EU
2) Leave the EU
3) Invade France

Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, did AV have a Yes/No choice, or was it to cross AV or FPTP?

I think it was Yes/No, but can't quite recall.

As someone who's mind is slipping and siding between 1 and 2, option 3 looks the best there.

I think a straight swap would be ideal, rather than an invasion. The French can have the UK, and the British can move to France. It's not patiotic to say so, but France beats seven shades out of the UK as a place to live. No wonder they never go abroad on holiday.

Princess? Duchess Parker Bowles arrives.

Anyone got a link to a vid of the FIFA press conference? All I can find are live streams, which are now useless...

Good morning everyone.
Question for the US experts on here.
With the arrest of the FIFA members this morning. Sky news seem to be saying that as Sepp Blatter hasn't been collared, he looks to be ok.
Is it the case that the US are using the same tactics as they did with the Mafia and going for the smaller fish first and threaten them with long prison sentences to encourage squealing on the bigger fish.

Tissue_Price said:

foxinsoxuk said:

OblitusSumMe said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

DavidL said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Why should I be pleased if and when the elected leader of the country so blatantly and willingly misleads the electorate?

I suppose the only reason I can see for being pleased with that situation is because it conforms what I said would happen all along in spite of the denials and shouts of outrage from the PB Tories.

That is an admission that Out cannot win under any circumstances, even the most favourable. But go ahead, blame Cameron for that if it makes you feel better.

Not at all. It is an admission that Cameron lying about what he has achieved will make it all the more difficult for Out to win. It is not impossible but it will be difficult when so many willing fools in the Tory party are going along with him for the sake of party unity.

It does also have the added effect of meaning that the EU will continue in its unreformed manner with ever closer union and that Cameron's legacy will be to be viewed in the same manner as Heath - who was by far the worst post war PM.

The BOOers will also be lying about what can be achieved by leaving.

It is one of many reasons that referendums are poor ways of deciding important questions.

I hope that this will be the last referendum, except on issues of statehood (though I guess some BOOers see this referendum in those terms and would like a question of the form "Should Britain become and independent country free of the EU?")

I'd much rather have more frequent general elections with the parties taking clear stands on the big issues of the day. I suppose they look at what Home Rule did to the Liberal Party and decide to punt anything contentious to referenda so they don't have to stand for election on one side or the other.

The Chartists only unmet demand is annual parliaments! I would be happy for 20% of seats to be up each year.

The Chartists were ahead of their time:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGAIhWPW8AAAYM5.png

As were the Monster Raving Loony Party I believe

http://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/7-monster-raving-loony-party-5644717

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Good morning everyone.
Question for the US experts on here.
With the arrest of the FIFA members this morning. Sky news seem to be saying that as Sepp Blatter hasn't been collared, he looks to be ok.
Is it the case that the US are using the same tactics as they did with the Mafia and going for the smaller fish first and threaten them with long prison sentences to encourage squealing on the bigger fish.

Their supergrass, Charles Blazer, is the long-serving former general secretary of CONCACAF and a former U.S. representative on the FIFA executive committee, so they've started high. But I'm sure efforts will be made over the coming weeks to drag the net upward. That's the way almost every investigation into this type of organisation works.

Morris_Dancer said:

Potential ballot options:
1) Retain membership of the EU
2) Leave the EU
3) Invade France

Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, did AV have a Yes/No choice, or was it to cross AV or FPTP?

I think it was Yes/No, but can't quite recall.

You forgot to add :
4) Seek reparations from France for the Norman Conquest.#

With compound interest it will solve our debt problem..

# following the example of the Greeks...

Mr. Fish, got to be honest, I view that as a Norman rather than a French matter.

Edited extra bit: although it's worth remembering that modern history isn't my strong point.

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

MaxPB said:

Rubbish, that's not how it works and you know it. The UK's net contribution would be divided proportionately by the other net contributors, so just a few countries would have to make up that number. I don't think the likes of Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands would be happy at having to pay considerably more into the EU budget.

The average not being evenly spread wouldn't really change things either way, because aside from the right-wing sexual fantasy of everyone obediently submitting to every whim of Angela Merkel, each country that cares relatively more would be counter-acted in the voting by another country that relatively totally doesn't give a shit.

But as it happens you're not right. For example, the Cohesion Fund is based on how rich you are relative to average EU GDP, so if a rich country leaves (or a poor one joins) the average GDP drops and a net recipient is going to net receive less.

So all countries lose by us leaving? The recipients gain less (and they can ill afford to gain less) while the contributors pay more (and they're already fed up of paying for Greece etc as the eurozone contributors are having to).

Yup, exactly. They lose a meaningful but not mind-boggling amount. It's about £25 a head, although it'll vary a bit from country to country.

More generally, when you hear a large number from a politician, it's normally best to do what a couple of people up-thread have objected to me doing and divide by the affected population to get it in perspective. This isn't particularly a trick to make it seem smaller - it's just the best way to see what the number means. If it's really a big number, it'll sound big when you imagine yourself paying it.

No I don't think that's at all appropriate.

That way leads to Brownian socialism. We'll increase spending on this, its only £5 a head. We'll increase spending on that, its only £20 a head. We should do that together its only £25 a head.

All those numbers add up. Its totally disingenuous to take a number in isolation on a per head basis.

Well, I don't think everyone has that reaction - the formulation of "This costs x per man, woman and child" (or the technically incorrect version, "this costs x for every man woman and child") is often used to complain about how big a number is.

If you want to spend more when you see what the numbers mean in perspective then maybe you're a Brownian socialist at heart...

madasafish said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Potential ballot options:
1) Retain membership of the EU
2) Leave the EU
3) Invade France

Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, did AV have a Yes/No choice, or was it to cross AV or FPTP?

I think it was Yes/No, but can't quite recall.

You forgot to add :
4) Seek reparations from France for the Norman Conquest.#

With compound interest it will solve our debt problem..

# following the example of the Greeks...

May be we can blame unemployment in the North on the Harrowing rather than on Thatcher? It'd make a change...

All those robes and jewels must be seriously hot to wear.

malcolmg said:

edmundintokyo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

edmundintokyo said:

So what's Cameron going to be giving all these other member states in return for whatever it is that he wants, and how is he going to sell _that_ to the voters at home?

He will be giving them the £17bn per year nett contribution they currently get from the UK, but wont get if we leave...

I don't know where you got that number - the OBR has it peaking out at 11.2 bn.

That's something like £25 a head for the remaining EU members, which is a useful amount of money, but not an earth-shatteringly large amount. And that'll come down long-term as the less developed countries converge with the more developed ones.

Not to mention that of the UK leaves the EU then Scotland is likely to rejoin, probably under less attractive terms than the UK.

I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's not enough to justify a bad press cycle for the PM of Poland or whatever.

Dividing it per head may make it sound small while economies are strong and can afford it but €16 billion is a not inconsiderable sum at a time when many European nations are struggling. Plus the fact is that it is Germany who are currently the true power in Europe and they know they'll get the bill if we leave. Plus Germany wants us to stay in as we provide an important liberal economic counterweight to many of the French inspired worst urges of the EU.

So we pay in plus they want us in. Finally many of the areas Cameron wants to renegotiate are those that Merkel is happy to see renegotiated too. A deal is very possible.

What are you expecting Cameron's going to get, specifically?

Platitudes at best.

Nonsense. He'll get a useless bauble of some kind to base theplatitudes on.

Sgt. Sunil: All right, sweethearts, you're a team and there's nothin' to worry about. We come here, and we gonna conquer, and we gonna kick some, is that understood? That's what we gonna do, sweethearts, we are going to go and get some. All right, people, on the ready line! Are ya lean?

PB Tories: Yeah!

Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?

PB Tories: YEAH!

Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?

PB Tories: LEAN AND MEAN!

Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? Rob D! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!

Antifrank.

Would you be happy with David Cameron appointing you as the new English Viceroy of Northern Ireland?

The natives aren't civilised enough to govern themselves

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@vivmondo: If the people at Panini have any business sense there'll be a Disgraced FIFA Officials 2015 sticker album released this afternoon.

The Foil cards can be the Russian and Qatari stadia that will no longer be used.....

Qatar is a joke though. Even the daftest greediest FIFA official should have seen that as a step too far too big a bung to miss out on.

Fixed

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

Casino_Royale said:

I must say, there's no better advert for Out than the postings of EiT on this thread on this issue.

Perhaps he might be persuaded the lead the In campaign.

Thanks but I don't have Eddie Izzard's proven track record.

He's a proven winner:

2010 General Election - lost
2011 AV referendun - lost
2014 Indy Ref - won (but heavily overshadowed by Dan Snow and Bob Geldof)
2015 General Election - lost (very badly in Scotland)

2012: Eddie Izzard backs Ken Livingstone for mayor - and the EURO in 2001.

kle4 said:

Jonathan said:

MikeSmithson said:

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/603474237249232896

Interesting, but that price has to be based almost exclusively on rumour, innuendo and hype.

Yes indeed - if she can actually impress during the campaign period, actual momentum rather than the rumour momentum at present might well emerge. Would be quite remarkable if she manages it, I hadn't realised at first she was one of the 2010 intake, so a veritable newcomer.

On current trends she will be favourite on Betfair by the weekend.

Laying Liz has never been more tempting...

SimonStClare said:

Casino_Royale said:

edmundintokyo said:

Casino_Royale said:

I must say, there's no better advert for Out than the postings of EiT on this thread on this issue.

Perhaps he might be persuaded the lead the In campaign.

Thanks but I don't have Eddie Izzard's proven track record.

He's a proven winner:

2010 General Election - lost
2011 AV referendun - lost
2014 Indy Ref - won (but heavily overshadowed by Dan Snow and Bob Geldof)
2015 General Election - lost (very badly in Scotland)

2012: Eddie Izzard backs Ken Livingstone for mayor - and the EURO in 2001.

Ah, of course. Thank you. A man you definitely want on your side!

antifrank said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Antifrank.

Would you be happy with David Cameron appointing you as the new English Viceroy of Northern Ireland?

The natives aren't civilised enough to govern themselves

I find one Ulsterman more than enough to deal with. Having to contend with nearly two million northern Irish is just too horrifying to contemplate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxpYW_w5pgo

foxinsoxuk said:

kle4 said:

Jonathan said:

MikeSmithson said:

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/603474237249232896

Interesting, but that price has to be based almost exclusively on rumour, innuendo and hype.

Yes indeed - if she can actually impress during the campaign period, actual momentum rather than the rumour momentum at present might well emerge. Would be quite remarkable if she manages it, I hadn't realised at first she was one of the 2010 intake, so a veritable newcomer.

On current trends she will be favourite on Betfair by the weekend.

Laying Liz has never been more tempting...

I don't understand the prices for next Labour leader at all. At the moment we are at the stage of finding out who the runners and riders are. We have no solid information yet as to which candidates are going to be well-placed in the election itself.

The price on Yvette Cooper in particular looks ludicrously long.

JosiasJessop said:

Plato said:

Qatar has Bribe written all over it.

foxinsoxuk said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@vivmondo: If the people at Panini have any business sense there'll be a Disgraced FIFA Officials 2015 sticker album released this afternoon.

The Foil cards can be the Russian and Qatari stadia that will no longer be used.....

I was quite looking forward to a Russian road trip in 2018. Visit Russia before it visits you...

Qatar is a joke though. Even the daftest FIFA official should have seen that as a step too far.

Its not just the World Cup venues though, South Africa lost out big time to line FIFAs pockets: FIFA exported the profits and left a £2 billion pound bill. All that corporate sponsorship went to FIFA rather than SA.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/jan/18/south-africa-africa-cup-of-nation

Qatar and the world cup is one of those situations where it was either corruption, gross incompetence, or both (perhaps gross incompetence in not realising people would realise it to be corrupt).

Whichever it is, it is clear that the people making the decisions should not be in position. Such costly incompetence or corruption should cost them their jobs.

If Qatar WC goes ahead it will be the killing of the Golden Goose for FIFA. No one will want to go, not players or fans.

And that is even before IS bids for control...

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

richardDodd said:

RT..I will look at the deal Cameron brings back and make my choice based on the details in the small print....Camerons personal opinion will not play any part in my deliberations..It is truly moronic to think an entire nation would be fobbed off..

Why? They were in 1975.

Not really fair. You certainly can't compare the 1975 referendum to the picture today as since then Parliament has passed many new treaties that had nothing to do with the 75 referendum. The issue with that isn't that they weren't discussed in 75 as they weren't agreed then. The issue is that there was no new referendum each time a new treaty was passed. It's the Parliaments that passed those further treaties from Thatcher on that carry responsibility for that not Heath.

Not so. If you look at the documents released since 1975 including the advise given by the FCO to both Heath and Wilson they make clear there is a significant loss of sovereignty in the accession to the EEC. Not of course that they told the public that.

The legal advice was that:

"Community law is required to take precedence over domestic law: i.e. if a Community law conflicts with a statute, it is the statute which has to give way. This is something not implied in other commitments which we have entered into in the past. Previous treaties have imposed on us obligations which have requiredus to legislate in order to fulfil the international obligations set out in the treaty, but any discrepancy between our legislation and the treaty obligations has been solely a question of a possible breach of those international obligations the conflicting statute has still undoubtedly been the law to be applied in this country. But the community system requires that such Community Law as applies directly as law in this country should by virtue of its own legal force as law in this country prevail over conflicting national legislation."

FCO file 30/1048

Dair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dair said:

CarlottaVance said:

Dair said:

asjohnstone said:

Ironic that the SNP and mainstream tories will be campaigning together for a "yes" to stay in.

The SNP will not be campaigning with the Tories.

Alex Salmond has been accused of “hypocrisy of the highest order” after admitting he would campaign alongside the Tories to keep the United Kingdom in Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11621866/Alex-Salmond-Ill-campaign-with-Tories-to-stay-in-EU.html

An article in the Telegraph currently has the status of "opposite to the truth". I can't be bothered sitting through the Newsnight interview but the lack of a direct quote is pretty telling.

How about the Dundee Courier?

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/salmond-would-back-osborne-on-eu-yes-vote-1.877650

You know, you keep this straw clutching up as long as you want.

Straw clutching?

Scotland voted to stay part of the UK and the Tories won a majority at the GE.

How has your last 9 months been?

Yesterday I heard that the 'ringleader' of the LIBOR fixers was 'motivated by pure greed'.

I'd be concerned if he wasn't.

Good Queen's speech overall, yet first time no quip from Dennis Skinner!

Casino_Royale said:

I think this might add to the EU's popularity:

"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32894624

From the point of view of Out, it would be good if this got a lot of publicity.

Sunil's "sectarian headcount maps" from the 2001 Census.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/maps/map12.htm

Anorak said:

Anyone got a link to a vid of the FIFA press conference? All I can find are live streams, which are now useless...

Starts at 28 mins:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2bw9Vz2-cs

What happens if the UK votes to stay in the EU but Scotland or Wales votes to come out?

HYUFD said:

Good Queen's speech overall, yet first time no quip from Dennis Skinner!

Probably concentrating on defending his seat from Jacobite SNP MPs....

11.15 SNP MPs in fit of symbolism
SNP MPs will wear a white rose in their lapels today. In the seventeenth century, the Jacobites took up the White Rose of York as their symbol, marking the birth of King James III and VIII.
The SNP press office says the symbol is an acknowledgement of the poem by Hugh MacDiarmid, the Scottish nationalist poet, the Little White Rose of Scotland.

The rose of all the world is not for me
I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That smells sharp and sweet - and breaks the heart.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech/11632050/Queens-Speech-2015-Live.html

JosiasJessop said:

I wonder how Ed Miliband feels as he watches the Queen's Speech: by all rights it should have been his programme being announced.

How quickly we forget...

EMWNBPM

By all rights Ed's programme was NEVER going to be announced

And there was much rejoicing

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

No I don't think that's at all appropriate.

That way leads to Brownian socialism. We'll increase spending on this, its only £5 a head. We'll increase spending on that, its only £20 a head. We should do that together its only £25 a head.

All those numbers add up. Its totally disingenuous to take a number in isolation on a per head basis.

Well, I don't think everyone has that reaction - the formulation of "This costs x per man, woman and child" (or the technically incorrect version, "this costs x for every man woman and child") is often used to complain about how big a number is.

If you want to spend more when you see what the numbers mean in perspective then maybe you're a Brownian socialist at heart...

Except you're the one doing precisely that, diminishing €16 billion as "only £25". This tactic is used to diminish tax cuts and spending increases as insignificant which is why this is a tactic much beloved of the left; even worse is dividing it per day or week. "Only £2 a week per person" makes something sound like loose change lost behind the sofa rather than over £7 billion.

The budget and all other expenditure is reported in millions or billions per annum, not per capita. Its disingenuous to refer to only one issue you care about in a non-standard method in order to spin its costs as being insignificant. You need to be consistent with everything if that's how you want to do it. Present the budget on a per capita rather than national per annum basis.

That's what I'm saying, if you hear a budget number you should do a quick mental conversion to per capita to work out what it means.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AndyJS said:

What happens if the UK votes to stay in the EU but Scotland or Wales votes to come out?

As currently formulated, nothing. Works both ways.

It wouldn't surprise me if the anti-EU vote in Wales turns out to be higher than in England. Not sure about Scotland. Just noticed that UKIP got 13.6% in Wales, only slightly less than the 14.1% they polled in England.

Scott_P said:

CarlottaVance said:

11.15 SNP MPs in fit of symbolism

SNP MPs proving once again that grandstanding and arsing about more important than doing the job

They look like they're off to a wedding

Wearing a Jacobite symbol to the Queens speech? Classy.

Why not go the whole hog and have a farting contest too.

Beverley_C said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think this might add to the EU's popularity:

"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32894624

It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.

Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!

@patrickwintour: My estimate based on past experience Labour set to lose 20 % of annual income. Will also change future party leadership elections.

What's the union funding change that's been announced?

AndyJS said:

1975 referendum, Yes %:

England: 68.7%
Wales: 64.8%
Scotland: 58.4%
NI: 52.1%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975#National_.26_regional_results

Not surprising given the left-wing focus of the No campaign.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Scott_P said:

Plato said:

What happened??

@patrickwintour: New to me: Govt to require union members to contract in to pay political levy - will cut income to union political funds, and so to Labour

Weren't we already on a opt-in system?

Definitely should be. Unions are supposed to represent people's interests at work, people should be free to get that representation without getting party politics that they don't necessarily believe in.

Seems very sensible to hold the vote as soon as possible. Whatever anyone says, uncertainty cannot be a good thing so the decision needs to be made. It will be interesting what the No campaign says about support for agriculture and rural areas which have received European aid. At present, I will be voting aye and it will take a very strong argument for me to vote nay.

Plato said:

Good. Not opting-in to any charge is poor consumer practice

Scott_P said:

Plato said:

What happened??

@patrickwintour: New to me: Govt to require union members to contract in to pay political levy - will cut income to union political funds, and so to Labour

If the unions were sensible they'd have a system where the members who pay into the levy would also vote for which parties the money was to go to, and the money was split in those proportions - for instance it might be 60% Labour, 25% Conservatives, 15% others.

Parties other than Labour would get a reason to take the unions' views more seriously, the unions would get more influence, and it would be a genuinely more democratic process. It would also be hard for parties other than Labour to complain about it.

However, as it would mean breaking the utterly destructive link between the unions and Labour, it won't happen.

@politicshome: .@UKIP MP Douglas Carswell says the EU Referendum Bill in the Queen's Speech is "wonderful" http://t.co/jg1e0Snkef http://t.co/p4TYldeJ4V

How long before Nige publicly contradicts him?

Scott_P said:

JosiasJessop said:

I wonder how Ed Miliband feels as he watches the Queen's Speech: by all rights it should have been his programme being announced.

How quickly we forget...

EMWNBPM

By all rights Ed's programme was NEVER going to be announced

And there was much rejoicing

I was talking from his perspective. I have little doubt he believed he should, and would, be PM.

Besides, there was always a chance that he would be PM, either in his own right or as part of a coalition. There were many open goals in the previous government's programme, and Ed and his team missed most of them.

I wonder if the Child Care Bill will correct the nonsense that the LibDems insisted on in the last parliament, which forced the coalition to leave in place the regulations on ratios of carers to children which make nurseries in the UK so expensive? Even the French, FFS, have more sensible rules.

Philip_Thompson said:

Beverley_C said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think this might add to the EU's popularity:

"But the BBC's Europe Reporter Gavin Lee says that the issue likely to cause most controversy is the mandatory quota system, whereby all 28 EU countries, including the UK, would be allocated a specific number of asylum seekers currently in Italy, Greece and Malta."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32894624

It is a totally stupid idea and just give the green light to people traffickers to send as many as they can in any old rickety boat and we will take them. The EU might as well open a branch office in Libya / North Africa to assist traffickers.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

The solution is to sort out the mess known as Africa by improving life for those who live there and bringing corrupt politicians to trial. And if anyone says that is Imperialism then I say maybe so but if it save lives and makes living conditions better for millions then maybe it should be considered because letting people die like flies is not a good answer.

Yet some numpties think we should be abolishing International Aid. Crazy!

I'm not in favour of abolishing it. I see no good reason for ring-fencing it.