It seems to me that the problem is the apparent inability to deport asylum seekers in a timely fashion.
This is the heart of the problem.
The Western Democracies have allowed three illogical inconsistent ideas to dominate how they view the migration debate and even most people who are trying to argue against mass migration do not fully understand or do not fully accept the need to deal with these on an intellectual basis.
1. The idea that individual human lives are sacrosanct and that anything and everything must be done to protect and save individual human lives not only can be done by MUST be done.
2. That the Social Contract on which Western Democracies are based should automatically exist for all individuals within its borders regardless of length of residence, legality of residence and cultural dis-similarity.
3. That the Human Rights of all are the same and these identical rights must always be respected.
This has led to a situation where "good immigration" is discouraged and "bad immigration" is encouraged. The most beneficial immigration is an Economic Migrant from a culturally similar background. Such migrants are highly contributory to the nation, put in much more than they take out and in any analysis are always a good thing.
This is what EU migration is intellectually based on even if it has failed to always deliver this (although it predominantly has).
Meanwhile the worst immigration - refugee migration - is fundamentally protected, often without consideration for the outcome it will have on the accepting country and the country that individuals leave. It removes the pressure for change on countries as they develop (which combined with foreign aid leads to long term issues for these countries) while creating long term demographic issues related to over-population and lack of working-age population.
Because the accepted Western belief is that refugees get to benefit from the Social Contract and Human Rights protection, it is impossible to effectively maintain a border. The claim of Asylum fundamentally destroys the ability of a state to control its border and make decisions on what sort of migration it allows. And in practical realpolitik terms, the more alien the culture of the migrant is, the more viable and harder to stop Asylum becomes.
The problem is therefore one which both politically and morally may not be possible to deal with. In the age of Virtue Signalling and an artificial Outrage Bus, it seems that there is no way to defuse and avoid the consequences of where we are today.
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
Apologies if it has been mentioned before, but it has some very interesting inside information which, if accurate, suggests that the upheaval in Labour is a long way from finished, while George Osborne's smugness may actually become unbearable.
If you can't get access to this article, buy an FT. This is a quite outstanding article, by some distance the best I've read on Jeremy Corbyn's impact on politics.
There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.
The formation of the United States?
The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?
India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)
Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote. Belgium had Flanders. In fact France is probably the only major nation which has been effectively unified since the middle ages
Germany and Italy were made up of sub-national States not Nations.
The concept and idea of being German or Italian exists long before the Nations became unified. They are not good examples.
No, Bavaria and Saxony and Naples had their own monarchs and parliaments. They were effectively independent nations. The UK was formed over a century and a half before Germany and Italy unified
The key unifying factor there would of course be the language, even allowing for some dialectic variations. You could perhaps mention Spain as a similar example, although there were a number of different factors at play in forming the kingdom including the remnants of the Reconquista. (And of course, there is the question of Catalonia and the Basque region so Spain can't be considered particularly stable at the moment.)
Yeah, I left out Spain because it doesn't seem as clear cut as Italy and Germany and of course, it isn't technically unified while Portugal remains outside (but then that also applies to Austria). It had a good run, 500 years or so.
For what it's worth, I'd consider both England and France to be the oldest countries in Europe.
Definitions can be quibbled a lot when it comes to nationhood, though. The Kingdom of France ended a couple of centuries ago, England conquered Wales and was then joined by Scotland, gained Ireland then lost most of it, etc.
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
To believe that a UK military uniform would upset muslims is an amazing foolishness. The UK military are employed to protect all UK citizens including muslims. Are our armed forces instructed to single out enemies on the basis of their religion?
There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.
The formation of the United States?
The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?
India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)
Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote
And Hanover - indeed, until 1837 the King of Britain/the UK was also separately King of Hanover, which caused more than a few problems in the Napoleonic wars.
PS - wasn't Venice a republic rather than a Kingdom until it was splurged by Napoleon?
That so many soft-BINers have moved into the BOOer camp says a lot - I think what's left of the EU isn't worth being part of. The Merkel crisis just confirmed the worst of their excesses/incompetence.
The key unifying factor there would of course be the language, even allowing for some dialectic variations. You could perhaps mention Spain as a similar example, although there were a number of different factors at play in forming the kingdom including the remnants of the Reconquista. (And of course, there is the question of Catalonia and the Basque region so Spain can't be considered particularly stable at the moment.)
Yeah, I left out Spain because it doesn't seem as clear cut as Italy and Germany and of course, it isn't technically unified while Portugal remains outside (but then that also applies to Austria). It had a good run, 500 years or so.
I thought of Austria and Germany too - after all, the first Emperor of Austria was officially the last Holy Roman (German) Emperor - while I was pondering whether to include Portugal as a problem with Spanish unity. You could make the same comment on Tibet, Korea and Mongolia, for China, possibly Burma for India, and even Papua New Guinea for Australia.
The problem is when the last comes to last that most nation states of any size and length of duration are more or less arbitrary constructs, which is why they keep changing/breaking up/having disputes about when they began (the current Russian Federation, for example, still has something like 85 nationalities within its borders). Africa is of course the worst mess of the lot because of the old pencil and ruler approach of the colonial powers.
Miss Plato, lots of people have said that over Greece and now the migrant crisis. But what's said in the heat of the moment may well slowly fade in the months and years as we approach the referendum. That's my view, anyway.
Mr. HYUFD, wasn't the merchant council really in charge?
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.
There's a lot in David's logic, but I'm afraid that he overestimates the will to change. I like the EU, but its tradition of muddling through is far stronger than any reformist zeal, to the annoyance of federalists and anti-federalists alike. In most countries, too, the electorate sometimes flirts with radical ideas but usually ends up coasting along. The entire crisis has seen no change in German opinion polls: Merkel remains exactly as popular as before and all parties have support unchanged within MOE (http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ ). Even a country in the direct grip of economic agony like Greece ultimately votes for the status quo, rejecting parties that favour leaving the Euro (which even Europhiles might agree would have been reasonable for them). The only real push for radical change is in some of the East European countries, and they are too new to the EU and too weak to act as influential levers.
That sounds complacent, but I don't like it any more than David does, for different reasons: I'd like to push ahead with greater integration and greater joint democracy (elected President etc.). But for all of us, an expectation of a grand redesign is a delusion, and it's important that reluctant Inners don't pin their hopes on it. There will be a series of rows followed by a fudged deal and warm words. It's possible that there will be something concrete on migration, and no doubt the City will get reassurance, but there just isn't a will for a massive rethink, or for any final deal at all before 2019.
I suspect that we too will vote for the status quo in the end, but if we let voters think that a cathartic moment of change (either to greater union or some sort of new structure) is coming, we are kidding them. This isn't unique to the EU - with the Scottish referendum we've had our own moment of existential crisis, but how much has actually changed in the way we organise Britain? Are we hurrying ahead with a grand redesign of how the UK is structured? No, we're muddling through. It's what governments do.
Nick - every previously reluctant inner that I know has recently become an Outer. Myself included.
Shocked, but not altogether surprised to read yesterday that the EU tariffs hit us more than he rest of the EU - we trade less with the common market than outside of it.
One thought I had was that if exporters from post-EU UK would be able to export without VAT - probably negating any impact our withdrawal would have on UK- EU trade.
A well written piece. The part that jumps out at me is that much of what the Eu has control over is trivial stuff. They have stated control over larger things, but if nations just flat out start to ignore it, the reality of that power is more limited than we think, and perhaps that explains why they seem so obsessed with interfering with every minor thing, much to my irritation - to appear ubiquitous and essential, when in fact they know they don't have as much central authority as is needed to make a I real Union. I had thought it an arrogance thing, but maybe it's compensatory.
The other does seem to be they have been rushing ahead with the project openly or by stealth, but not many are actually making the case for it certainly in this nation, and justifying itself is something the eu is very bad at. They justify why cooperation is important, for peace. And the. Like, but not why the Eu needs to be the way it is or why it needs o do more. The centre of the project may be hollower than I thought.
Like others, I too was an inner for a long time, if not enthusiastically. But it's just been too much, the direction of travel is in theory laudable but the reality just disminishes every good idea.
''Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.''
Easy to say matey. But with the human rights lawyer and the anti-wacism squad just a phone call away, would you risk your livelihood?? Would you want to be sent away for 'awareness re-education??'
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter.
Why risk it? Perhaps there is a small muslim awkward squad who don;t hesitate to kick up a fuss if they feel offended in any way??
Imagine having to deal with them as an NHS worker.
The fact the problem exists at all is concrete proof there has been too much immigration. When people warned against it, saying it would lead to segregation and clashes of culture, this was the kind of incident that was predicted. Those warnings were dismissed as scaremongering then, and amazingly still are now even as they become reality
You don't debunk any example by providing a completely different example.
The claim is simple, the patriarchists believe that immigration to any EU country is a stepping stone to immigration to the UK. It is not.
The specific reason the Dutch Somalis moved to the UK was because of the UKs ridiculous attempts at the Multicultural model whereas Netherland was and is Integrationist.
Nope. That is a straw man argument and you know it. I note you changed your original posting from 'racist' to 'patriarch', perhaps betraying what you really think about this argument.
The argument made is not that we think they will all want to come to the UK. It is that there will be significant numbers who will want to spread out around the EU rather than remain in Germany.
This applies not just to the UK but to France, Spain, Denmark and any other country in the EU. If you are talking of tens of thousands of people arriving in Germany then that would not be an issue. When you are talking about in excess of 1 million in one year with a German policy of encouraging many more in subsequent years then it does become a problem, not just for the UK but for the whole of the EU.
I know with your hatred for the UK and your fanatical Europhilia you are desperate to paint this as just the UK and its supposed 'patriarchal' (or racist as you seem to believe) views, but in fact it is about the whole German policy of encouraging large scale migration into Europe assuming that if it gets too much for Germany they can just palm it off on the rest of the EU.
While there are racist aspects to the debate, the specifics of the "they all want to come here" nonsense is Patriarchal not Racist, hence the edit.
You bring up France - another fine example. How many French Algerians are there in the UK? Very few.
The irony here is that you are against something I am also against. But your argument is fundamentally flawed and based on age old Patriarchal biases which are completely alien to the real world.
And since significant numbers of those travelling to Germany are not Syrians but are from places like Pakistan, I wonder where they will eventually want to settle?
Not in a country with former colonial ties, well established Pakistani communities and shared language, surely? Somewhere else, definitely.
David, an excellent thread - and already some quality comments.
I thought this central: "Europe has wanted it both ways: to play at Union by giving up what are essential national powers without handing that power up to anyone. It has simply been lost." The trouble with the EU is everybody wants it both ways. The commitment to the European superstate exists with many in Brussels, and a handful in national capitals. The rest of Europe looks at the UK like it is some spotty teenager, reluctantly dragged along by the parents to a party, where it insists on hogging the music with its favoured death metal that no-one else wants to listen to. But we are starting to see the spotty teenager in many EU members. And Merkel and Juncker are the parents every spotty teenager rages against.
To function as a superstate, the EU needs a common currency and secure borders. (Everything that wishes to call itself a state needs respected borders.) The bold thing to do would be for Brussels to grab the referendum initiative itself. Each country should take new vows. The Euro and Schengen. And ever closer union. And a European army. And a Constitution. All the stuff it wants, all the stuff it is trying to do by stealth. Call national bluffs. Are you in - or are you out?
Bet the farm that all bar the UK would cling to nurse for fear of something worse.
And those nations that do vote to fold into a European superstate will probably prosper in a reinvigorated Europe, shorn of so much of the pretence and subterfuge. The UK and those that don't join could still be offered some associate status (in reality, a non-aggression pact on tariffs and trade).
Chances of it happening? Nil.
A single currency leads to a single state. That has long been realised and the constraints on Greece show that. That's why we are out of it and we need renegotiation. Cameron well ahead of the game again and something to put to the electorate looks increasingly likely. As I regularly say the main impediment to us simply leaving and joining the EEA is the Schengen Agreement. Leaving and then looking to negotiate a new deal would lead us to be pressurised into joining Schengen. Current events show how unwise Schengen is. Along with a single currency the free movement of non EU members once within EU borders marks the de facto actions of a single state. This is not just refugees climbing over a fence, it is people flying in and then travelling on.
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
A clear example from Pierce of where too many tweets doth make a twat.
Firstly the serviceman was a sergeant and not an officer and I see no indication that situation involved a Muslim.
''Those warnings were dismissed as scaremongering then, and amazingly still are now even as they become reality''
It isn;t too much immigration, it is community self entitlement. The authorities, from the prime minister down, near to make it crystal clear that British soldiers fight for the safety of everyone, that their activities are determined by a democratically elected government, and that actions of these types will not be tolerated and perpetrators prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter.
Why risk it? Perhaps there is a small muslim awkward squad who don;t hesitate to kick up a fuss if they feel offended in any way??
Imagine having to deal with them as an NHS worker.
The fact the problem exists at all is concrete proof there has been too much immigration. When people warned against it, saying it would lead to segregation and clashes of culture, this was the kind of incident that was predicted. Those warnings were dismissed as scaremongering then, and amazingly still are now even as they become reality
But this is nothing to do with immigration as a concept.
It is entirely related to how the UK deals with immigration. By encouraging bad immigration where individuals are culturally alien to the UK and by implementing Multiculturalism over Integration.
''Those warnings were dismissed as scaremongering then, and amazingly still are now even as they become reality''
It isn;t too much immigration, it is community self entitlement. The authorities, from the prime minister down, near to make it crystal clear that British soldiers fight for the safety of everyone, that their activities are determined by a democratically elected government, and that actions of these types will not be tolerated and perpetrators prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Let us hope for the best, and fast forward (say) 5 years. Assad and ISIS are gone, or at least in the case of the latter effectively emasculated, and where Syria was is an enormous war-damage zone, rather like Germany in 1946. How many of today’s Syrian refugees might return home to rebuild their country. I suggest quite a few, espeially if we in Europe offer them assistance to do so. So what do we do n the meantime? I suggest we have to tell them that.
I see Switzerland has banned the sale of VW Diesels.
The US fines won't kill VW.
But the Protectionism that's going to kick in almost certainly will.
VW is 10% of the Germany economy. It's 5% just on it's own Revenue so 10% might be an underestimate. The scale of what this could mean for the next five years could be vast.
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
To draw the obvious conclusion it appears then that some of us think that although home based members of a "different culture" can murder, at home, our service members, it's definitely not acceptable to upset them by treating our uniformed protectors. Bollocks to that.
I like the description of many eu nations and leaders as spotty teenagers. And the thing is, the tendency flares up even when nations don't have opt outs in certain areas, which at least showed a warning of that tendency. We and they signed to agree to consensus decisions and normally go along even if unhappy. But sometimes issues come along where they will just refuse to play ball regardless of agreement, and then the Eu is in trouble.
There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.
The formation of the United States?
The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?
India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)
Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote
And Hanover - indeed, until 1837 the King of Britain/the UK was also separately King of Hanover, which caused more than a few problems in the Napoleonic wars.
PS - wasn't Venice a republic rather than a Kingdom until it was splurged by Napoleon?
A republican city state though had the Doges
It's the way republicans walk .... but may be treated in NHS casualty departments as long as they are in mufti .... which is fine especially if they are a Muslim cleric ....
David, an excellent thread - and already some quality comments.
I thought this central: "Europe has wanted it both ways: to play at Union by giving up what are essential national powers without handing that power up to anyone. It has simply been lost." The trouble with the EU is everybody wants it both ways. The commitment to the European superstate exists with many in Brussels, and a handful in national capitals. The rest of Europe looks at the UK like it is some spotty teenager, reluctantly dragged along by the parents to a party, where it insists on hogging the music with its favoured death metal that no-one else wants to listen to. But we are starting to see the spotty teenager in many EU members. And Merkel and Juncker are the parents every spotty teenager rages against.
To function as a superstate, the EU needs a common currency and secure borders. (Everything that wishes to call itself a state needs respected borders.) The bold thing to do would be for Brussels to grab the referendum initiative itself. Each country should take new vows. The Euro and Schengen. And ever closer union. And a European army. And a Constitution. All the stuff it wants, all the stuff it is trying to do by stealth. Call national bluffs. Are you in - or are you out?
Bet the farm that all bar the UK would cling to nurse for fear of something worse.
And those nations that do vote to fold into a European superstate will probably prosper in a reinvigorated Europe, shorn of so much of the pretence and subterfuge. The UK and those that don't join could still be offered some associate status (in reality, a non-aggression pact on tariffs and trade).
Chances of it happening? Nil.
A single currency leads to a single state. That has long been realised and the constraints on Greece show that. That's why we are out of it and we need renegotiation. Cameron well ahead of the game again and something to put to the electorate looks increasingly likely. As I regularly say the main impediment to us simply leaving and joining the EEA is the Schengen Agreement. Leaving and then looking to negotiate a new deal would lead us to be pressurised into joining Schengen. Current events show how unwise Schengen is. Along with a single currency the free movement of non EU members once within EU borders marks the de facto actions of a single state. This is not just refugees climbing over a fence, it is people flying in and then travelling on.
You keep making this claim about Schengen and it is as false now as it was when you first made it. Joining the EEA would not have any impact on whether or not we joined Schengen nor vice versa. There is absolutely no requirement for EEA m,embers to be part of Schengen and they have the right, within the Schengen treaty, to withdraw if they wish - something that does not exist for EU members.
You don't debunk any example by providing a completely different example.
The claim is simple, the patriarchists believe that immigration to any EU country is a stepping stone to immigration to the UK. It is not.
The specific reason the Dutch Somalis moved to the UK was because of the UKs ridiculous attempts at the Multicultural model whereas Netherland was and is Integrationist.
Nope. That is a straw man argument and you know it. I note you changed your original posting from 'racist' to 'patriarch', perhaps betraying what you really think about this argument.
The argument made is not that we think they will all want to come to the UK. It is that there will be significant numbers who will want to spread out around the EU rather than remain in Germany.
This applies not just to the UK but to France, Spain, Denmark and any other country in the EU. If you are talking of tens of thousands of people arriving in Germany then that would not be an issue. When you are talking about in excess of 1 million in one year with a German policy of encouraging many more in subsequent years then it does become a problem, not just for the UK but for the whole of the EU.
I know with your hatred for the UK and your fanatical Europhilia you are desperate to paint this as just the UK and its supposed 'patriarchal' (or racist as you seem to believe) views, but in fact it is about the whole German policy of encouraging large scale migration into Europe assuming that if it gets too much for Germany they can just palm it off on the rest of the EU.
While there are racist aspects to the debate, the specifics of the "they all want to come here" nonsense is Patriarchal not Racist, hence the edit.
You bring up France - another fine example. How many French Algerians are there in the UK? Very few.
The irony here is that you are against something I am also against. But your argument is fundamentally flawed and based on age old Patriarchal biases which are completely alien to the real world.
And since significant numbers of those travelling to Germany are not Syrians but are from places like Pakistan, I wonder where they will eventually want to settle?
Not in a country with former colonial ties, well established Pakistani communities and shared language, surely? Somewhere else, definitely.
David, an excellent thread - and already some quality comments.
I thought this central: "Europe has wanted it both ways: to play at Union by giving up what are essential national powers without handing that power up to anyone. It has simply been lost." The trouble with the EU is everybody wants it both ways. The commitment to the European superstate exists with many in Brussels, and a handful in national capitals. The rest of Europe looks at the UK like it is some spotty teenager, reluctantly dragged along by the parents to a party, where it insists on hogging the music with its favoured death metal that no-one else wants to listen to. But we are starting to see the spotty teenager in many EU members. And Merkel and Juncker are the parents every spotty teenager rages against.
To function as a superstate, the EU needs a common currency and secure borders. (Everything that wishes to call itself a state needs respected borders.) The bold thing to do would be for Brussels to grab the referendum initiative itself. Each country should take new vows. The Euro and Schengen. And ever closer union. And a European army. And a Constitution. All the stuff it wants, all the stuff it is trying to do by stealth. Call national bluffs. Are you in - or are you out?
Bet the farm that all bar the UK would cling to nurse for fear of something worse.
And those nations that do vote to fold into a European superstate will probably prosper in a reinvigorated Europe, shorn of so much of the pretence and subterfuge. The UK and those that don't join could still be offered some associate status (in reality, a non-aggression pact on tariffs and trade).
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.
Imagine if there was a complainant, and it was not a Muslim as we are assuming, but a Stop the War type moron...
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter.
Why risk it? Perhaps there is a small muslim awkward squad who don;t hesitate to kick up a fuss if they feel offended in any way??
Imagine having to deal with them as an NHS worker.
The fact the problem exists at all is concrete proof there has been too much immigration. When people warned against it, saying it would lead to segregation and clashes of culture, this was the kind of incident that was predicted. Those warnings were dismissed as scaremongering then, and amazingly still are now even as they become reality
But this is nothing to do with immigration as a concept.
It is entirely related to how the UK deals with immigration. By encouraging bad immigration where individuals are culturally alien to the UK and by implementing Multiculturalism over Integration.
Yes I agree immigration as a concept needn't lead to the mess we have, but really it is about numbers I think.
If you have too many people believing something completely different, no amount of law can change that or prevent a dysfunctional society
You don't debunk any example by providing a completely different example.
The claim is simple, the patriarchists believe that immigration to any EU country is a stepping stone to immigration to the UK. It is not.
The specific reason the Dutch Somalis moved to the UK was because of the UKs ridiculous attempts at the Multicultural model whereas Netherland was and is Integrationist.
Nope. That is a straw man argument and you know it. I note you changed your original posting from 'racist' to 'patriarch', perhaps betraying what you really think about this argument.
The argument made is not that we think they will all want to come to the UK. It is that there will be significant numbers who will want to spread out around the EU rather than remain in Germany.
This applies not just to the UK but to France, Spain, Denmark and any other country in the EU. If you are talking of tens of thousands of people arriving in Germany then that would not be an issue. When you are talking about in excess of 1 million in one year with a German policy of encouraging many more in subsequent years then it does become a problem, not just for the UK but for the whole of the EU.
I know with your hatred for the UK and your fanatical Europhilia you are desperate to paint this as just the UK and its supposed 'patriarchal' (or racist as you seem to believe) views, but in fact it is about the whole German policy of encouraging large scale migration into Europe assuming that if it gets too much for Germany they can just palm it off on the rest of the EU.
While there are racist aspects to the debate, the specifics of the "they all want to come here" nonsense is Patriarchal not Racist, hence the edit.
You bring up France - another fine example. How many French Algerians are there in the UK? Very few.
The irony here is that you are against something I am also against. But your argument is fundamentally flawed and based on age old Patriarchal biases which are completely alien to the real world.
And since significant numbers of those travelling to Germany are not Syrians but are from places like Pakistan, I wonder where they will eventually want to settle?
Not in a country with former colonial ties, well established Pakistani communities and shared language, surely? Somewhere else, definitely.
Careful. Dair will say you are being Patriarchal.
(S)He doth deck his dull chat with hard words he don't understand......
I expect to be treated to a nice derangement of epitaphs any moment......proof of how he reprehends his oracular tongue.....
The EU might unite in response to Britain leaving. That's quite a likely scenario.
And a crushing defeat for the British foreign policy of the last six centuries of 'divide and rule'.
Whether we are better off out or not, it is clearly not in our interests to have a massive, protectionist, and embittered country twenty miles off our coast (or having a land border with part of the country) with which we do roughly 45% of all our trade.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter.
Why risk it? Perhaps there is a small muslim awkward squad who don;t hesitate to kick up a fuss if they feel offended in any way??
Imagine having to deal with them as an NHS worker.
The fact the problem exists at all is concrete proof there has been too much immigration. When people warned against it, saying it would lead to segregation and clashes of culture, this was the kind of incident that was predicted. Those warnings were dismissed as scaremongering then, and amazingly still are now even as they become reality
But this is nothing to do with immigration as a concept.
It is entirely related to how the UK deals with immigration. By encouraging bad immigration where individuals are culturally alien to the UK and by implementing Multiculturalism over Integration.
Yes I agree immigration as a concept needn't lead to the mess we have, but really it is about numbers I think.
If you have too many people believing something completely different, no amount of law can change that or prevent a dysfunctional society
The Poles do not demonstrate that there is any realistic cap required. You have had hundreds of thousands migrating with no problem, boosting the economy, paying taxes and eventually returning home.
Even huge levels of immigration are perfectly acceptable if it is not culturally alien.
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
To believe that a UK military uniform would upset muslims is an amazing foolishness. The UK military are employed to protect all UK citizens including muslims. Are our armed forces instructed to single out enemies on the basis of their religion?
Yep. This whole thing strikes me as being in the same light as those councils who ban Christmas events to avoid upsetting muslims. And the muslims are there saying they actually enjoy the Christmas events even if they are not part of their tradition and are fed up with being blamed for something that is being done in their name even when they don't want it.
It would be interesting to see if there has been a single complaint by a muslim about a man in uniform at this hospital. I very much doubt it.
''Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.''
Easy to say matey. But with the human rights lawyer and the anti-wacism squad just a phone call away, would you risk your livelihood?? Would you want to be sent away for 'awareness re-education??'
I wouldn't.
I know but that is what is wrong with this country, full of whinging liberal jobsworths
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.
Imagine if there was a complainant, and it was not a Muslim as we are assuming, but a Stop the War type moron...
''Imagine if there was a complainant, and it was not a Muslim as we are assuming, but a Stop the War type moron...
I'm sure that the hospital staff don;t fear a stop the war type.''
A radical muslim, with the might of the race industry behind them, and locked in racial disciplinary procedures throughout the health service to boot...???
That is a completely different matter for any poor NHS worker. I pity them.
The EU might unite in response to Britain leaving. That's quite a likely scenario.
And a crushing defeat for the British foreign policy of the last six centuries of 'divide and rule'.
Whether we are better off out or not, it is clearly not in our interests to have a massive, protectionist, and embittered country twenty miles off our coast (or having a land border with part of the country) with which we do roughly 45% of all our trade.
"with which we do roughly 45% of all our trade"
They sell more to us than we sell to them, so I don't think this will be much of a problem.
Miss Plato, lots of people have said that over Greece and now the migrant crisis. But what's said in the heat of the moment may well slowly fade in the months and years as we approach the referendum. That's my view, anyway.
Mr. HYUFD, wasn't the merchant council really in charge?
There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.
The formation of the United States?
The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?
India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)
Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote
And Hanover - indeed, until 1837 the King of Britain/the UK was also separately King of Hanover, which caused more than a few problems in the Napoleonic wars.
PS - wasn't Venice a republic rather than a Kingdom until it was splurged by Napoleon?
A republican city state though had the Doges
It's the way republicans walk .... but may be treated in NHS casualty departments as long as they are in mufti .... which is fine especially if they are a Muslim cleric ....
Interesring though not quite sure the Venice connection
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.
Imagine if there was a complainant, and it was not a Muslim as we are assuming, but a Stop the War type moron...
Your point is ? Whoever or whatever the complainant was and no matter what twisted mind they have on any topic , they should be sorted out. This country is sick.
PS: your opinion on the views of someone in "Stop the War" suggests it was some intolerant person like yourself that was involved in the decision making.
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.
Imagine if there was a complainant, and it was not a Muslim as we are assuming, but a Stop the War type moron...
Imagine if Sergeant Prendeville was a Muslim ?!?
ISTR that Muslim extremists have made plenty of complaints (and some threats) about other Muslims who've taken the Queen's shilling.
The comparison with the American states is a very lazy one in my opinion. With a couple of rare exceptions, the American states were never actually independent. They went from being under British sovereignty to being under the Continental Congress to being under the US government we know today. The European nations each have long independent histories with their own national identities, cultures, legal systems and languages.
Yep. This whole thing strikes me as being in the same light as those councils who ban Christmas events to avoid upsetting muslims. And the muslims are there saying they actually enjoy the Christmas events even if they are not part of their tradition and are fed up with being blamed for something that is being done in their name even when they don't want it.
It would be interesting to see if there has been a single complaint by a muslim about a man in uniform at this hospital. I very much doubt it.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised. People in hospital are often in pain, and people in pain don't necessarily behave in logical ways, or even ways they would behave normally.
The case about the soldier being moved in hospital is disgusting. Whoever moved him should have a yellow card type reprimand and sacked if they do something similar again. Those that serve in our armed forces should be prioritised, and if any person of a foreign culture complains about that they should be told they are failing to integrate and might be better off leaving the country.
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
To draw the obvious conclusion it appears then that some of us think that although home based members of a "different culture" can murder, at home, our service members, it's definitely not acceptable to upset them by treating our uniformed protectors. Bollocks to that.
The comparison with the American states is a very lazy one in my opinion. With a couple of rare exceptions, the American states were never actually independent. They went from being under British sovereignty to being under the Continental Congress to being under the US government we know today. The European nations each have long independent histories with their own national identities, cultures, legal systems and languages.
Indeed and the two examples retain small but active and growing Independence movements. It is possible that once the United States loses its economic and military dominance, that those movements will grow to become significant.
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.
Imagine if there was a complainant, and it was not a Muslim as we are assuming, but a Stop the War type moron...
Your point is ? Whoever or whatever the complainant was and no matter what twisted mind they have on any topic , they should be sorted out. This country is sick.
PS: your opinion on the views of someone in "Stop the War" suggests it was some intolerant person like yourself that was involved in the decision making.
You are entitled to your opinion. Even if it is wrong.
Let us hope for the best, and fast forward (say) 5 years. Assad and ISIS are gone, or at least in the case of the latter effectively emasculated, and where Syria was is an enormous war-damage zone, rather like Germany in 1946. How many of today’s Syrian refugees might return home to rebuild their country. I suggest quite a few, espeially if we in Europe offer them assistance to do so. So what do we do n the meantime? I suggest we have to tell them that.
One wonders if more than half of PBers live in cloud cuckoo land.
'"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.'
And how about people from different cultures that are upset by Burqa & assorted bin bag uniforms ?
Makes JCs non singing of the anthem look Churchillian
"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.
In an explanation to his family, hospital workers were said to have claimed ‘they didn’t want to upset people’ because they ‘have lots of different cultures coming in’.
Sergeant Prendeville’s father, Jim, said: ‘Mark was moved because of his uniform – he was told that twice' "
It would be interesting to see Dr Fox's view on this.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
To draw the obvious conclusion it appears then that some of us think that although home based members of a "different culture" can murder, at home, our service members, it's definitely not acceptable to upset them by treating our uniformed protectors. Bollocks to that.
To be clear: that is not what I am saying.
Understood. I worry that that is what someone in the hospital, or (worse) a fraction of our population thinks.
Let us hope for the best, and fast forward (say) 5 years. Assad and ISIS are gone, or at least in the case of the latter effectively emasculated, and where Syria was is an enormous war-damage zone, rather like Germany in 1946. How many of today’s Syrian refugees might return home to rebuild their country. I suggest quite a few, espeially if we in Europe offer them assistance to do so. So what do we do n the meantime? I suggest we have to tell them that.
One wonders if more than half of PBers live in cloud cuckoo land.
There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.
The formation of the United States?
The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?
India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)
Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote
And Hanover - indeed, until 1837 the King of Britain/the UK was also separately King of Hanover, which caused more than a few problems in the Napoleonic wars.
PS - wasn't Venice a republic rather than a Kingdom until it was splurged by Napoleon?
A republican city state though had the Doges
It's the way republicans walk .... but may be treated in NHS casualty departments as long as they are in mufti .... which is fine especially if they are a Muslim cleric ....
Interesring though not quite sure the Venice connection
Oh ....
After WWII an influx of Venetian republicans came to the area around Maida Vale and Paddington. It became known as Little Venice. These post war gondoliers were attracted by the Grand Union Canal setting.
However they came with their own problems. Generations of water borne transport and lack of walking exercise had led many of them to suffer from lower body muscle wastage - known as the doges - after a 16th century Doge who suffered an unfortunate gait.
The newly created NHS at St Mary's Hospital Paddington became world acclaimed in the treatment of the doges and named the department the Mufti Centre in honour of the legless Mufti of Bosnia Herzegovina who part funded the centre following his exile to London in 1947.
There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.
The formation of the United States?
The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?
India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)
Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote
And Hanover - indeed, until 1837 the King of Britain/the UK was also separately King of Hanover, which caused more than a few problems in the Napoleonic wars.
PS - wasn't Venice a republic rather than a Kingdom until it was splurged by Napoleon?
A republican city state though had the Doges
It's the way republicans walk .... but may be treated in NHS casualty departments as long as they are in mufti .... which is fine especially if they are a Muslim cleric ....
Interesring though not quite sure the Venice connection
Oh ....
After WWII an influx of Venetian republicans came to the area around Maida Vale and Paddington. It became known as Little Venice. These post war gondoliers were attracted by the Grand Union Canal setting.
However they came with their own problems. Generations of water borne transport and lack of walking exercise had led many of them to suffer from lower body muscle wastage - known as the doges - after a 16th century Doge who suffered an unfortunate gait.
The newly created NHS at St Mary's Hospital Paddington became the world acclaimed in the treatment of the doges and named the department the Mufti Centre in honour of the legless Mufti of Bosnia Herzegovina who part funded the centre following his exile to London in 1947.
''Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.''
Easy to say matey. But with the human rights lawyer and the anti-wacism squad just a phone call away, would you risk your livelihood?? Would you want to be sent away for 'awareness re-education??'
I wouldn't.
I know but that is what is wrong with this country, full of whinging liberal jobsworths
There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.
The formation of the United States?
The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?
India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)
Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote
And Hanover - indeed, until 1837 the King of Britain/the UK was also separately King of Hanover, which caused more than a few problems in the Napoleonic wars.
PS - wasn't Venice a republic rather than a Kingdom until it was splurged by Napoleon?
A republican city state though had the Doges
It's the way republicans walk .... but may be treated in NHS casualty departments as long as they are in mufti .... which is fine especially if they are a Muslim cleric ....
Interesring though not quite sure the Venice connection
Oh ....
After WWII an influx of Venetian republicans came to the area around Maida Vale and Paddington. It became known as Little Venice. These post war gondoliers were attracted by the Grand Union Canal setting.
However they came with their own problems. Generations of water borne transport and lack of walking exercise had led many of them to suffer from lower body muscle wastage - known as the doges - after a 16th century Doge who suffered an unfortunate gait.
The newly created NHS at St Mary's Hospital Paddington became the world acclaimed in the treatment of the doges and named the department the Mufti Centre in honour of the legless Mufti of Bosnia Herzegovina who part funded the centre following his exile to London in 1947.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter.
Why risk it? Perhaps there is a small muslim awkward squad who don;t hesitate to kick up a fuss if they feel offended in any way??
Imagine having to deal with them as an NHS worker.
The fact the problem exists at all is concrete proof there has been too much immigration. When people warned against it, saying it would lead to segregation and clashes of culture, this was the kind of incident that was predicted. Those warnings were dismissed as scaremongering then, and amazingly still are now even as they become reality
But this is nothing to do with immigration as a concept.
It is entirely related to how the UK deals with immigration. By encouraging bad immigration where individuals are culturally alien to the UK and by implementing Multiculturalism over Integration.
Yes I agree immigration as a concept needn't lead to the mess we have, but really it is about numbers I think.
If you have too many people believing something completely different, no amount of law can change that or prevent a dysfunctional society
The Poles do not demonstrate that there is any realistic cap required. You have had hundreds of thousands migrating with no problem, boosting the economy, paying taxes and eventually returning home.
Even huge levels of immigration are perfectly acceptable if it is not culturally alien.
Fair point. My problem with mass immigration from Eastern Europe is the undercutting of wages, and the way the establishment, who benefit, discard reasonable complaints from those who are negatively affected. The frustration that arises is the cause of any resentment there may be. But culturally they are obviously a much better fit
Some of the EU"s response to the migrant crisis is inadequate and some poorly co-ordinated, but would it look much different if the EU or Shengen did not exist at all?
The main stream of migrants cross an external border into Greece, then leave the EU and Shengen to enter FYR Macedonia, then enter another Non-EU state in Serbia, then re-enter the EU into Croatia before running into border controls at Slovenia, Austria or Hungary, and again into Germany.
The problem is not the EU, it is the collapse of functioning states across the Muslim part of the world, the lack of effective policing of borders whether in the EU or not and the Refugee Convention. The problem is happening in Europe but is not caused by the EU and would look much the same if all countries were completely autonomous.
But I am not sure that even tearing up the refugee convention would halt the flood.
A comment that conveniently ignored that by accepting and encouraging migrants to settle in Germany - and consequently in the whole of the rest of the EU within 5 years - Merkel has sent out an open invitation to hundreds of thousands of more people to risk their lives in the hands of the smugglers. It is a criminal act which has been made possible by the German dominance of the EU.
The migrants don't give a damn about 5 years from now. They're given an option to get a better life now, today. An opportunity to live in Germany now is infinitely better than living in an impoverished failed state in Africa or the Middle East.
Abolishing free movement of the EU would make zero difference to the attraction of Germany.
''Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.''
Easy to say matey. But with the human rights lawyer and the anti-wacism squad just a phone call away, would you risk your livelihood?? Would you want to be sent away for 'awareness re-education??'
I wouldn't.
I know but that is what is wrong with this country, full of whinging liberal jobsworths
''Either way the staff involved or the moron(s) who complained should be ejected from the hospital at the end of a size 10.''
Easy to say matey. But with the human rights lawyer and the anti-wacism squad just a phone call away, would you risk your livelihood?? Would you want to be sent away for 'awareness re-education??'
I wouldn't.
I know but that is what is wrong with this country, full of whinging liberal jobsworths
There isn't an example of tying nations together successfully and permenantly. UK, USSR, Spain, India, the Balkans, Roman Empire etc.
The formation of the United States?
The federation of the USA with the Republic of Texas?
India's a pretty good example as well. Yes, Bangladesh and Pakistan were hived off, but the multiplicity of Hindi princely states were combined despite their differences (e.g. I spent a couple of days this week in Ahmedabad which, as a dry, vegetarian, state is very different to, say, Mumbai)
Germany too, Bavaria and Prussia and Saxony used to be separate Kingdoms. In Italy so do did the likes of Naples and the city state of Venice. Spain obviously had Castile and Aragon and Catalonia. Canada had Quebec and in Australia even Western Australia once had an independence vote
And Hanover - indeed, until 1837 the King of Britain/the UK was also separately King of Hanover, which caused more than a few problems in the Napoleonic wars.
PS - wasn't Venice a republic rather than a Kingdom until it was splurged by Napoleon?
A republican city state though had the Doges
It's the way republicans walk .... but may be treated in NHS casualty departments as long as they are in mufti .... which is fine especially if they are a Muslim cleric ....
Interesring though not quite sure the Venice connection
Oh ....
After WWII an influx of Venetian republicans came to the area around Maida Vale and Paddington. It became known as Little Venice. These post war gondoliers were attracted by the Grand Union Canal setting.
However they came with their own problems. Generations of water borne transport and lack of walking exercise had led many of them to suffer from lower body muscle wastage - known as the doges - after a 16th century Doge who suffered an unfortunate gait.
The newly created NHS at St Mary's Hospital Paddington became world acclaimed in the treatment of the doges and named the department the Mufti Centre in honour of the legless Mufti of Bosnia Herzegovina who part funded the centre following his exile to London in 1947.
'That so many soft-BINers have moved into the BOOer camp says a lot - I think what's left of the EU isn't worth being part of. The Merkel crisis just confirmed the worst of their excesses/incompetence.'
The BOOer's were looking for a leader and along came Merkel.
And somehow Labour elected this nutter to lead them and possibly our country. You really could not make it up. Self harm on a grand scale.
The fact that he could believe such things at the time (irrespective of what he thinks now) shows how - as a total unreconstituted loony he is - how unsuitable he is to ever be PM. It also shows that really he is not a 'labour' politician (if indeed he can be said to be a 'politician') at all. He is an infiltrator and he and his comrades are determined to eat away at labour from within. It seems strange that he should even in 2003 claim that Bin Ladin was not responsible for 911 since the man himself admitted it on video.
I'm a very outward looking sort and would love to emigrate to the US/Canada, but I fail the entry criteria - that I even seriously checked this out says something about my mindset. I've seriously considered northern India too - I just love the place, but living there in my dotage may not be so smart.
And somehow Labour elected this nutter to lead them and possibly our country. You really could not make it up. Self harm on a grand scale.
The fact that he could believe such things at the time (irrespective of what he thinks now) shows how - as a total unreconstituted loony he is - how unsuitable he is to ever be PM. It also shows that really he is not a 'labour' politician (if indeed he can be said to be a 'politician') at all. He is an infiltrator and he and his comrades are determined to eat away at labour from within. It seems strange that he should even in 2003 claim that Bin Ladin was not responsible for 911 since the man himself admitted it on video.
I think I rate poorly in these things - I got someone who wasn't even an Emperor in that 'Which Roman Emperor are you?' thing yesterday.
Presumably it was the bit about the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.
I do wish I were more adventurous. Just last week a relative of mine who lives in Australia popped by to visit - they'd been in Laos, but couldn't find a decent motorcycle hire, so decided to pop back to the UK for a few weeks before heading to Hong Kong, then to India. Travel makes me sick and nervous unfortunately, I must make an effort to get over it.
The Iraq invasion always seemed to be a cause looking for an excuse but the Afghan incursion at least had a good fig leaf.
A month before the 9/11 attack, the ground was prepared by Al Queda assassinating the charismatic Northern Alliance leader with a suicide bomb.
The USA then had a bigger problem in responding, but to have ignored it, would have sent a bad message. We can argue about how they should have responded but allowing 3,000 murders on your home soil when the culprits were known wasn't one of them.
The 90% of Labour MPs that did not want Corbyn are sleep walking into policies that they will be unable to support set by the socialist party membership and await their own deselection. Meanwhile the line seems to be "it's alright he is not that bad". Fiddling while Rome burns.
Comments
The Western Democracies have allowed three illogical inconsistent ideas to dominate how they view the migration debate and even most people who are trying to argue against mass migration do not fully understand or do not fully accept the need to deal with these on an intellectual basis.
1. The idea that individual human lives are sacrosanct and that anything and everything must be done to protect and save individual human lives not only can be done by MUST be done.
2. That the Social Contract on which Western Democracies are based should automatically exist for all individuals within its borders regardless of length of residence, legality of residence and cultural dis-similarity.
3. That the Human Rights of all are the same and these identical rights must always be respected.
This has led to a situation where "good immigration" is discouraged and "bad immigration" is encouraged. The most beneficial immigration is an Economic Migrant from a culturally similar background. Such migrants are highly contributory to the nation, put in much more than they take out and in any analysis are always a good thing.
This is what EU migration is intellectually based on even if it has failed to always deliver this (although it predominantly has).
Meanwhile the worst immigration - refugee migration - is fundamentally protected, often without consideration for the outcome it will have on the accepting country and the country that individuals leave. It removes the pressure for change on countries as they develop (which combined with foreign aid leads to long term issues for these countries) while creating long term demographic issues related to over-population and lack of working-age population.
Because the accepted Western belief is that refugees get to benefit from the Social Contract and Human Rights protection, it is impossible to effectively maintain a border. The claim of Asylum fundamentally destroys the ability of a state to control its border and make decisions on what sort of migration it allows. And in practical realpolitik terms, the more alien the culture of the migrant is, the more viable and harder to stop Asylum becomes.
The problem is therefore one which both politically and morally may not be possible to deal with. In the age of Virtue Signalling and an artificial Outrage Bus, it seems that there is no way to defuse and avoid the consequences of where we are today.
But my tuppenceworth: it depends on whether a patient made a complaint.
If a patient had not complained, then the members of staff who moved the sergeant were well out of order, and should receive a minor reprimand. It should also go on their records.
If a patient had complained, it is a different matter. I suppose a staff member must judge whether the complaint is justified or not. If (s)he thinks it is justified, then action is taken and the sergeant moved.
However, if the complaint is not justified, but the complainer has worked themselves up into a state then it might still be sensible, with apologies, to move whichever patient is easiest and safest to move to restore calm.
From the report, it sounds as though the first scenario is the correct one.
Why risk it? Perhaps there is a small muslim awkward squad who don;t hesitate to kick up a fuss if they feel offended in any way??
Imagine having to deal with them as an NHS worker.
The question should be asked, would the Iraq War have taken place without 9/11? I think the answer to that has to be no.
Would Blair and Bush have been able to attack Iraq if 9/11 had not happened?
No.
Definitions can be quibbled a lot when it comes to nationhood, though. The Kingdom of France ended a couple of centuries ago, England conquered Wales and was then joined by Scotland, gained Ireland then lost most of it, etc.
The EU is a mad house and it really is time to leave them to it.
Europe has very different cultures even between Britain and France, let alone further afield.
Working together within Europe is a good idea, e.g. for science projects or common consumer standards.
Forcing everyone together in a federal EU is ultimately doomed to fail, because of the cultural issues.
The problem is when the last comes to last that most nation states of any size and length of duration are more or less arbitrary constructs, which is why they keep changing/breaking up/having disputes about when they began (the current Russian Federation, for example, still has something like 85 nationalities within its borders). Africa is of course the worst mess of the lot because of the old pencil and ruler approach of the colonial powers.
Mr. HYUFD, wasn't the merchant council really in charge?
No it isn't. There was a widely reported case of a muslim berating an injured soldier in a UK hospital a few years back.
The hospital said it had had a case of an altercation before now.
Now I really think we need to leave.
The other does seem to be they have been rushing ahead with the project openly or by stealth, but not many are actually making the case for it certainly in this nation, and justifying itself is something the eu is very bad at. They justify why cooperation is important, for peace. And the. Like, but not why the Eu needs to be the way it is or why it needs o do more. The centre of the project may be hollower than I thought.
Like others, I too was an inner for a long time, if not enthusiastically. But it's just been too much, the direction of travel is in theory laudable but the reality just disminishes every good idea.
Easy to say matey. But with the human rights lawyer and the anti-wacism squad just a phone call away, would you risk your livelihood?? Would you want to be sent away for 'awareness re-education??'
I wouldn't.
As I regularly say the main impediment to us simply leaving and joining the EEA is the Schengen Agreement. Leaving and then looking to negotiate a new deal would lead us to be pressurised into joining Schengen. Current events show how unwise Schengen is.
Along with a single currency the free movement of non EU members once within EU borders marks the de facto actions of a single state. This is not just refugees climbing over a fence, it is people flying in and then travelling on.
Firstly the serviceman was a sergeant and not an officer and I see no indication that situation involved a Muslim.
You really could not make it up.
Self harm on a grand scale.
It isn;t too much immigration, it is community self entitlement. The authorities, from the prime minister down, near to make it crystal clear that British soldiers fight for the safety of everyone, that their activities are determined by a democratically elected government, and that actions of these types will not be tolerated and perpetrators prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
It is entirely related to how the UK deals with immigration. By encouraging bad immigration where individuals are culturally alien to the UK and by implementing Multiculturalism over Integration.
So what do we do n the meantime? I suggest we have to tell them that.
But the Protectionism that's going to kick in almost certainly will.
VW is 10% of the Germany economy. It's 5% just on it's own Revenue so 10% might be an underestimate. The scale of what this could mean for the next five years could be vast.
Bollocks to that.
If you have too many people believing something completely different, no amount of law can change that or prevent a dysfunctional society
Indeed. Perhaps they will all hold referendums to see if they want to leave.
I expect to be treated to a nice derangement of epitaphs any moment......proof of how he reprehends his oracular tongue.....
Whether we are better off out or not, it is clearly not in our interests to have a massive, protectionist, and embittered country twenty miles off our coast (or having a land border with part of the country) with which we do roughly 45% of all our trade.
Even huge levels of immigration are perfectly acceptable if it is not culturally alien.
It would be interesting to see if there has been a single complaint by a muslim about a man in uniform at this hospital. I very much doubt it.
I'm sure that the hospital staff don;t fear a stop the war type.''
A radical muslim, with the might of the race industry behind them, and locked in racial disciplinary procedures throughout the health service to boot...???
That is a completely different matter for any poor NHS worker. I pity them.
They sell more to us than we sell to them, so I don't think this will be much of a problem.
https://books.google.co.id/books?id=hrtIDakUpA4C&pg=PT805&lpg=PT805&dq=fowler's+modern+english+usage+malapropisms&source=bl&ots=ZT-e2Wy3oD&sig=41zkmr7fPqtz98mJTVshZf0wX0o&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=fowler's modern english usage malapropisms&f=false
PS: your opinion on the views of someone in "Stop the War" suggests it was some intolerant person like yourself that was involved in the decision making.
A bit of fun. How migrant are you?
http://show.nojam.com/a2t2/feature1.php?c=0&b=1
When union states start to crumble, they tend to fall like dominoes.
Imagine a reinvigorated EFTA, perhaps encompassing the Eastern states as well.
'"An RAF sergeant who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan was moved out of a hospital waiting room because staff feared his uniform would upset people from different cultures, it was reported.'
And how about people from different cultures that are upset by Burqa & assorted bin bag uniforms ?
Martian & Moonbat weekly is not considered a suitable linky.
After WWII an influx of Venetian republicans came to the area around Maida Vale and Paddington. It became known as Little Venice. These post war gondoliers were attracted by the Grand Union Canal setting.
However they came with their own problems. Generations of water borne transport and lack of walking exercise had led many of them to suffer from lower body muscle wastage - known as the doges - after a 16th century Doge who suffered an unfortunate gait.
The newly created NHS at St Mary's Hospital Paddington became world acclaimed in the treatment of the doges and named the department the Mufti Centre in honour of the legless Mufti of Bosnia Herzegovina who part funded the centre following his exile to London in 1947.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11890995/101-ways-to-make-a-Lib-Dem-less-useless.html
Maybe it's because I'm a Welshman with a Chinese grandmother...
And with that, I have to get some work done. Have a good weekend everyone.
Abolishing free movement of the EU would make zero difference to the attraction of Germany.
'That so many soft-BINers have moved into the BOOer camp says a lot - I think what's left of the EU isn't worth being part of. The Merkel crisis just confirmed the worst of their excesses/incompetence.'
The BOOer's were looking for a leader and along came Merkel.
I think I rate poorly in these things - I got someone who wasn't even an Emperor in that 'Which Roman Emperor are you?' thing yesterday.
It seems strange that he should even in 2003 claim that Bin Ladin was not responsible for 911 since the man himself admitted it on video.
Edited extra bit: and Kvyat starts from the pit lane.
What did you say Yes to that gave you 14%?
I'm a very outward looking sort and would love to emigrate to the US/Canada, but I fail the entry criteria - that I even seriously checked this out says something about my mindset. I've seriously considered northern India too - I just love the place, but living there in my dotage may not be so smart.
It is a parallel universe in Corbynland. I can't wait to watch McDonnell's conf speech about following Tory spending plans!
I do wish I were more adventurous. Just last week a relative of mine who lives in Australia popped by to visit - they'd been in Laos, but couldn't find a decent motorcycle hire, so decided to pop back to the UK for a few weeks before heading to Hong Kong, then to India. Travel makes me sick and nervous unfortunately, I must make an effort to get over it.
The Iraq invasion always seemed to be a cause looking for an excuse but the Afghan incursion at least had a good fig leaf.
A month before the 9/11 attack, the ground was prepared by Al Queda assassinating the charismatic Northern Alliance leader with a suicide bomb.
The USA then had a bigger problem in responding, but to have ignored it, would have sent a bad message. We can argue about how they should have responded but allowing 3,000 murders on your home soil when the culprits were known wasn't one of them.