Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35985404)

Westminster council are saying that, up until just over a year ago, they, the police and immigration officials could move them on or send them home. They say that since this EU ruling all that they can do is ask them to go home. This rarely achieves the desired result.

The relevant section of the programme explains this, i'm sure that if what you are saying was doable that they'd use this to achieve their aims.

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------



That's out of date eg it talks about 2014 as a future point in time.

Scrapping freedom of movement need not affect anyone wanting to come here to do hard to fill vacancies or to work in skill shortage areas. It's their right to come here that is so objectionable.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35985353)

You are still wrong I am afraid. The definition of a democratic mandate is not the absolute number that voted but rather the percentage of the available electorate that voted for the motion. The UK has a larger population than in 1975 so the electorate is larger in numeric terms.

By your simplistic definition, the USA is "more" democratic than us because more people voted a particular way in the election.

Your approach to this issue, like others, mirrors the Leave campaign and all that led up to it. Take a fact and re-spin it into an alternative "fact" and then shout it from the rooftops, endlessly, as the "truth" until enough people start thinking it really is the truth.



Again, incorrect. In 1975, we were told about the increased political union:

UK Voters knew the 1975 Referendum was about both an ‘economic & political union’ with the rest of Europe





On what grounds?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35985404)

Westminster council are saying that, up until just over a year ago, they, the police and immigration officials could move them on or send them home. They say that since this EU ruling all that they can do is ask them to go home. This rarely achieves the desired result.

The relevant section of the programme explains this, i'm sure that if what you are saying was doable that they'd use this to achieve their aims.

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------



That's out of date eg it talks about 2014 as a future point in time.

Scrapping freedom of movement need not affect anyone wanting to come here to do hard to fill vacancies or to work in skill shortage areas. It's their right to come here that is so objectionable.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35985385)

It is part of the EU rules that if someone moves to another country under Freedom of Movement of Workers, and don't have a job in 3 months, they can be sent home - the fact that our Government doesn't do this isn't the fault of the EU.

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35985417)

I have a horrible feeling that the peace being part of the EU has brought over the last 40 years is part of the problem.

People seem to be itching for a fight, becoming increasingly angry over the slightest thing. Racism is growing, whilst methods of reducing it are missing the point. Silencing critique of ideas with spurious labels, rather than facing them and admitting problems. Society becoming more polarised is not helping.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35985421)

In a Channel 5 programme from 2015, which was repeated a month ago, there was a Slovakian Roma couple who came here(to Rotherham) with TWENTY-TWO children and grandchildren. Only one of them employed, all of them housed, given benefits etc. It was said that there were an estimated 6,000 Slovakian Roma just in Rotherham.



Link.






---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 16:03 ----------


The EU was only formed in 1993, and there are countries that are in the EU now, but weren't then and before. Before then, were they at war? NO, they weren't. So nearly 40 years of peace, BEFORE the EU was formed.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35985421)

In a Channel 5 programme from 2015, which was repeated a month ago, there was a Slovakian Roma couple who came here(to Rotherham) with TWENTY-TWO children and grandchildren. Only one of them employed, all of them housed, given benefits etc. It was said that there were an estimated 6,000 Slovakian Roma just in Rotherham.



Link.






---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 16:03 ----------


The EU was only formed in 1993, and there are countries that are in the EU now, but weren't then and before. Before then, were they at war? NO, they weren't. So nearly 40 years of peace, BEFORE the EU was formed.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35985418)

Great, show me the superseded version then please? If you're that knowledgeable it shouldn't take you long to find !!

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35985421)

<nipped>

The EU was only formed in 1993, and there are countries that are in the EU now, but weren't then and before. Before then, were they at war? NO, they weren't. So nearly 40 years of peace, BEFORE the EU was formed.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35985425)

Once again, up to the U.K. Government to ship them back - can’t blame the EU if we don’t enforce the rules...

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35985428)

The first European elections were held in 1979. The EU did not suddenly spring into existence in 1993, it grew over time from the seed of an idea following WW2. The peace that began, spread to a united Germany, Poland out from under the yolk of the USSR, along with all the other eastern countries joining the EU.

Peace & unity are great things to work towards. Just sad that xenophobia seems to be getting too much air time.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35985432)

Nissan now warning about production decreases

https://news.sky.com/story/nissan-co...urces-11655931

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35985432)

Nissan now warning about production decreases

https://news.sky.com/story/nissan-co...urces-11655931

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35985434)

"uncertainty" refers to a decision not being made, NOT what the decision is. The "uncertainty" is a result of the Remain side obstructing a decision.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35985435)

On the contrary. It’s the lack of a single vision of the leave side. Is it May’s deal? No deal? Something else?

A single clear vision of Brexit would win the argument surely. After all 17.4 million people knew exactly the type of Brexit they were voting for.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35985440)

The "deal" is NOT a deal, it is just interim arrangements. Doesn't matter how clear or otherwise a vision is, when there are so many people determined to sabotage the democratic vote.

No deal better than uncertainty, says head of German industry