Well the link is there if anyone has the time to explore the issues for themselves ..just have a case of migraine tablets ready ..personally I would prefer to verify the facts myself from an official document than rely on one persons take on it . So for now I will defer from forming an opinion on the article Tom posted .
Well the link is there if anyone has the time to explore the issues for themselves ..just have a case of migraine tablets ready ..personally I would prefer to verify the facts myself from an official document than rely on one persons take on it . So for now I will defer from forming an opinion on the article Tom posted .
Fair enough The problem arises when someone ‘on the fence’ starts believing nonsense, for example the EU telling us what shape our bananas have to be, then base their vote on that.
I would suggest more people voted to leave on these assumptions than voted remain, as we knew what we were getting ( more of the same) when voting remain, and “ project fear” was better aimed at the Leave campaign.
Well the link is there if anyone has the time to explore the issues for themselves ..just have a case of migraine tablets ready ..personally I would prefer to verify the facts myself from an official document than rely on one persons take on it . So for now I will defer from forming an opinion on the article Tom posted .
Fair enough The problem arises when someone ‘on the fence’ starts believing nonsense, for example the EU telling us what shape our bananas have to be, then base their vote on that.
I would suggest more people voted to leave on these assumptions than voted remain, as we knew what we were getting ( more of the same) when voting remain, and “ project fear” was better aimed at the Leave campaign.
Well I would have more respect for whoever posted the article in the first instance if he/she actually backed up their points with references to the relevant sections of the treaty , as I would if Phil had explained why he believes the points he has addressed as being" nonsense " are incorrect . Is no one on this political forum asking the person to evidence ( for want of a better word ) their article with fact ?
Well the link is there if anyone has the time to explore the issues for themselves ..just have a case of migraine tablets ready ..personally I would prefer to verify the facts myself from an official document than rely on one persons take on it . So for now I will defer from forming an opinion on the article Tom posted .
Fair enough The problem arises when someone ‘on the fence’ starts believing nonsense, for example the EU telling us what shape our bananas have to be, then base their vote on that.
I would suggest more people voted to leave on these assumptions than voted remain, as we knew what we were getting ( more of the same) when voting remain, and “ project fear” was better aimed at the Leave campaign.
Well I would have more respect for whoever posted the article in the first instance if he/she actually backed up their points with references to the relevant sections of the treaty , as I would if Phil had explained why he believes the points he has addressed as being" nonsense " are incorrect . Is no one on this political forum asking the person to evidence ( for want of a better word ) their article with fact ?
Fair point again Unfortunately, as is the case in the majority of online rhetoric, no facts either for or against the statement are offered, just slanderous name calling and pointing out the op has a Union Jack as their profile pic...
Personally I find most of the points hard to believe, I’m not going to trawl through the Lisbon Treaty though 😉.
Well the link is there if anyone has the time to explore the issues for themselves ..just have a case of migraine tablets ready ..personally I would prefer to verify the facts myself from an official document than rely on one persons take on it . So for now I will defer from forming an opinion on the article Tom posted .
Fair enough The problem arises when someone ‘on the fence’ starts believing nonsense, for example the EU telling us what shape our bananas have to be, then base their vote on that.
I would suggest more people voted to leave on these assumptions than voted remain, as we knew what we were getting ( more of the same) when voting remain, and “ project fear” was better aimed at the Leave campaign.
Well I would have more respect for whoever posted the article in the first instance if he/she actually backed up their points with references to the relevant sections of the treaty , as I would if Phil had explained why he believes the points he has addressed as being" nonsense " are incorrect . Is no one on this political forum asking the person to evidence ( for want of a better word ) their article with fact ?
The person who made the original post wasn't on this site. Tom posted it on this site and clearly stated it had been posted elsewhere. There are many videos posted on YouTube by reliable sources, and a whole range of newspaper articles published by reliable sources.
I am certain that the likes of Boris Johnson wouldn't have been able to stop himself shouting this nonsense from the rooftops in the referendum campaign, if there was any chance of getting away with it,
The Lisbon Treaty was implemented almost 10 years ago, and I think that I read somewhere that it consists of 270 pages. You will probably need a law degree to make any sense of it. How far should you go back? How many other treaties should you read?
Lord Snooty would still be making political capital out of this, if there were any truth in it.
No knowledge of The Lisbon Treaty is required to decide that a small number of the claims are obviously true, and are common knowledge, as well knowing that a number of the claims are patently untrue.
I am not sure that much of it is relevant to where we are now, as we are set to leave anyway in March.
Well the link is there if anyone has the time to explore the issues for themselves ..just have a case of migraine tablets ready ..personally I would prefer to verify the facts myself from an official document than rely on one persons take on it . So for now I will defer from forming an opinion on the article Tom posted .
Fair enough The problem arises when someone ‘on the fence’ starts believing nonsense, for example the EU telling us what shape our bananas have to be, then base their vote on that.
I would suggest more people voted to leave on these assumptions than voted remain, as we knew what we were getting ( more of the same) when voting remain, and “ project fear” was better aimed at the Leave campaign.
Well I would have more respect for whoever posted the article in the first instance if he/she actually backed up their points with references to the relevant sections of the treaty , as I would if Phil had explained why he believes the points he has addressed as being" nonsense " are incorrect . Is no one on this political forum asking the person to evidence ( for want of a better word ) their article with fact ?
The person who made the original post wasn't on this site. Tom posted it on this site and clearly stated it had been posted elsewhere. There are many videos posted on YouTube by reliable sources, and a whole range of newspaper articles published by reliable sources.
I am certain that the likes of Boris Johnson wouldn't have been able to stop himself shouting this nonsense from the rooftops in the referendum campaign, if there was any chance of getting away with it,
The Lisbon Treaty was implemented almost 10 years ago, and I think that I read somewhere that it consists of 270 pages. You will probably need a law degree to make any sense of it. How far should you go back? How many other treaties should you read?
Lord Snooty would still be making political capital out of this, if there were any truth in it.
No knowledge of The Lisbon Treaty is required to decide that a small number of the claims are obviously true, and are common knowledge, as well knowing that a number of the claims are patently untrue.
I am not sure that much of it is relevant to where we are now, as we are set to leave anyway in March.
I'm well aware of that and if you read my post I clearly ask the question if anyone on that forum was questioning the validity of the post . Please keep up ! I'd also like to establish , which bits are true and which bits aren't ...even though the extensive document is probably beyond my capabilities of comprehension .
On the issue of polls and their accuracy etc ..the BBC issued this statement after Diane Abbott and the labour party complained about her treatment on question time "The BBC also said it reviewed the polling figures used in the programme, and that while a YouGov poll on the day of the programme put the Conservatives ahead, Ms Abbott was "right to say other polls suggested Labour was either ahead or tied".
On the issue of polls and their accuracy etc ..the BBC issued this statement after Diane Abbott and the labour party complained about her treatment on question time "The BBC also said it reviewed the polling figures used in the programme, and that while a YouGov poll on the day of the programme put the Conservatives ahead, Ms Abbott was "right to say other polls suggested Labour was either ahead or tied".
The BBC added: "We should have made that clear."
She just wasn't very good, on the programme.
On the subject of polls, the one I quoted is referred to as The Peoples Vote Large Poll which included 25,537 people. The first page of their survey results, includes results of 10 surveys, the numbers involved in each poll excepting the one I quoted, goes from as little as 1070 up to 5043.
On the issue of polls and their accuracy etc ..the BBC issued this statement after Diane Abbott and the labour party complained about her treatment on question time "The BBC also said it reviewed the polling figures used in the programme, and that while a YouGov poll on the day of the programme put the Conservatives ahead, Ms Abbott was "right to say other polls suggested Labour was either ahead or tied".
The BBC added: "We should have made that clear."
She just wasn't very good, on the programme.
On the subject of polls, the one I quoted is referred to as The Peoples Vote Large Poll which included 25,537 people. The first page of their survey results, includes results of 10 surveys, the numbers involved in each poll excepting the one I quoted, goes from as little as 1070 up to 5043.
I don't think she's very good , full stop ....but the point is , you would expect the BBC to present a level playing field to all parties on question time ..not sure they are doing that . As far as polls are concerned in general , I intend to continue taking them with a pinch of salt.
Theresa may "She says the best way to rule out a no deal Brexit is to agree a deal with the EU. The only other way is to extend Article 50, something she says the EU is unlikely to agree to without a clear plan of how an agreement can be reached.
When people say the government should rule out no deal, she says they are essentially saying "we should revoke Article 50".
Revoking article 50 isn't the same as asking for an extension at all ...it's not favourable for the EU to have us exit without a deal either , so why wouldn't they agree to an extension ? Surely right minded people are saying , if we are going to implement Brexit properly and in a way that is not going to disadvantage the UK ( anymore than it might ) then we have to find an exit plan that the majority agrees with , and the only way to do that is to get an extension ?
On the issue of polls and their accuracy etc ..the BBC issued this statement after Diane Abbott and the labour party complained about her treatment on question time "The BBC also said it reviewed the polling figures used in the programme, and that while a YouGov poll on the day of the programme put the Conservatives ahead, Ms Abbott was "right to say other polls suggested Labour was either ahead or tied".
The BBC added: "We should have made that clear."
She just wasn't very good, on the programme.
On the subject of polls, the one I quoted is referred to as The Peoples Vote Large Poll which included 25,537 people. The first page of their survey results, includes results of 10 surveys, the numbers involved in each poll excepting the one I quoted, goes from as little as 1070 up to 5043.
I don't think she's very good , full stop ....but the point is , you would expect the BBC to present a level playing field to all parties on question time ..not sure they are doing that . As far as polls are concerned in general , I intend to continue taking them with a pinch of salt.</b
She does more car crash interviews than anyone I know. The BBC should provide a level playing field. I think that her complaints about the show was more down to her poor performance than anything else. As far as I remember there was a small dispute between her and Isobel Oakshott about polling figures which Fiona Bruce got involved in. The truth will depend on which polls you pay attention to. I obviously didn't see the warm up, but some of her complaints were silly. Her complaints were about a lot more than a dispute about polls.
Diane Abbott accuses Question Time of legitimising ‘mistreatment, bias and abuse’ against her ‘The only black woman on the panel was jeered at and interrupted,’ spokesperson says
Diane Abbott has accused the BBC of legitimising the “mistreatment, bias and abuse” that she faces “as a black woman in public life” following claims she was mocked before a Question Time programme. The shadow home secretary appeared on Thursday night’s debate and has since claimed she was interrupted more often than the other guests.
Previously, Twitter users had suggested Labour’s long-serving Hackney MP was the butt of jokes made during the warm-up before filming.
The BBC has denied its staff treated any member of the panel unfairly. A spokesperson for Ms Abbott said: “We are appalled by the treatment of Diane Abbott. It was clear that a hostile atmosphere was whipped up, propped up by reports of inappropriate and sexist commentary in the audience warm-up session.
She was later challenged after saying Labour were “level pegging” with the Conservatives in opinon polls, with Bruce joining panellist Isobel Oakeshott in stating the Tories had a six-point lead. While a recent YouGov poll gave Ms May’s party a lead of six points, a number of other polls since have estimated a narrow lead for Labour.
Diane Abbott accuses BBC Question Time of legitimising racism Labour MP’s spokesperson claims she was mocked and interrupted more than other panellists
Diane Abbott has accused BBC Question Time of legitimising racist abuse after claims that the shadow home secretary was singled out before and during Thursday night’s episode of the political discussion programme. The Labour politician claimed she had been unfairly mocked in the warm-up and had been interrupted more often than other panellists by Fiona Bruce, the programme’s new chair. “We are appalled by the treatment of Diane Abbott on BBC’s Question Time,” a spokesperson for Abbott said. “It was clear that a hostile atmosphere was whipped up, propped up by reports of inappropriate and sexist commentary in the audience warm-up session.
The Momentum petition referred to an exchange where panellist Isabel Oakeshott said that Labour were “way behind in the polls” and Abbott replied that “we are kind of level-pegging” before Bruce said that Labour were “definitely” behind. But recent polling has found the two parties roughly neck and neck.
Theresa may "She says the best way to rule out a no deal Brexit is to agree a deal with the EU. The only other way is to extend Article 50, something she says the EU is unlikely to agree to without a clear plan of how an agreement can be reached.
When people say the government should rule out no deal, she says they are essentially saying "we should revoke Article 50".
Revoking article 50 isn't the same as asking for an extension at all ...it's not favourable for the EU to have us exit without a deal either , so why wouldn't they agree to an extension ? Surely right minded people are saying , if we are going to implement Brexit properly and in a way that is not going to disadvantage the UK ( anymore than it might ) then we have to find an exit plan that the majority agrees with , and the only way to do that is to get an extension ?
The EU are running out of patience.
We are able to unilaterally revoke Article 50. This means it is all cancelled and the Brexit plan is in the bin. We would stay in on the same terms, and have to redo it in the future, if we wanted to leave.
The EU have said they would extend Article 50, if they had good reason. Like a General Election, second referendum, or even to get the legislation through on an agreed deal. They have said they wont extend just for her to carry on thinking about a plan.
EU elections are due in May, and the MEPs take their seats on 2nd July. So if we extend past July we would need to put up candidates.
She agreed The Backstop, which is causing all the problems 13 months ago.
The referendum was in 2016. We invoked Article 50 in March 2017.
We have been negotiating for nearly 2 years and we haven't got to the end of phase one.
Phase one should have been done in a week at the most.
All we needed to do was work out how much money that we owed them. That we would give EU citizens the same rights that they currently have. Provided that this was reciprocated to Brits living in the EU. Finally resolve the Irish Border.
This should not have taken any more than one week.
The same solutions to the Irish border still apply, we just have to choose one. We could have chosen a solution 2 years ago. No additional solutions have been found.
We are spending over £4billion just in case there is no deal. This money will have been wasted if we avoid it.
The only clear majority in Parliament is for avoiding no deal.
She has been blackmailing MPs, threatening the leavers with choosing her deal or risking no Brexit, and the other side with voting for her deal, or risking no deal.
It has therefore suited her to run the clock down.
New figures suggest the majority of Brits think new immigrants are good for the UK and co-operation between nations is extremely important – but most of Europe doesn’t agree. In a global opinion poll of over 10,000 people published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) ahead of Davos 2019, a large majority of people from all over the world rejected the notion that national improvement is a zero-sum game, and said that immigrants benefit their adopted country.
UK immigration – these shocking stats show the disconnect between rules and reality The UK government recently announced its new immigration plans for post-Brexit Britain, which include removing preferential access for EU citizens and only allowing immigrants with an annual salary of at least £30,000 ($38,000) to work in Britain.
Immigrants are a bargain, fiscally speaking The survey also asked about the role of technology in society, and found more people think it does more harm than good than vice versa.
simonyesterday A highly educated engineer from Germany would be most welcome , a semi illiterate Somalian from a war torn Muslim country who has no hope of integrating is certainly not . It depends from which country they are coming from .
ReplyReplies (26)13412
christopheryesterday Since August 2015, when Chancellor Merkel decided to open up the doors so that anyone in the world could call Europe home, Germany alone allowed more than 1 million of refugees and economic migrants into the country, according to the German Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). The British journal The Telegraph reported that the number of crimes committed by economic migrants and failed asylum seekers rose to 174,438 in 2016 – a surge of 52.7 per cent, according to the Ministry of the Interior, Thomas de Maiziere.
ReplyReplies (6)904
ItTakesATranslatoryesterday True. Immigration of well educated, productive, and innovative persons is good for country. Immigration of poorly educated and dependent population groups, not so much. Unless of course your goal is to drive down the cost of low skill manual labor and pass the difference on to the countries tax payers.
ReplyReplies (2)793
Andy P23 hours ago Does anyone actually know someone who took part in any of these recent polls that keep popping up suggesting the majority wants more immigration/the government to stop Brexit/ a second referendum etc. etc.?
skbyesterday They never stop making up story's, yet another Poll / survey thats states lies, you can prove almost anything with selective questioning ?
ReplyReplies (1)1054
Davidyesterday Again I wasn’t asked
ReplyReplies (5)1014
John12 hours ago Depends on your definition of a immigrant, a skilled doctor from where ever fine no problems with that, a family of 10 from where ever who does not even speak the lingo no.
Reply14
Coldyesterday "Most Brits think immigration is good for the UK" Maybe "most Brits" should look into their own backyard first. Their country has been invaded by foreigners who have zero intention of assimilating to their culture and way of life.
ReplyReplies (6)1016
Joanna11 hours ago absolutely but a major change in demographics over a short time period causes major issues. Britian is a very welcoming country and many migrants from the Huguenots to recent Eastern Europeans have contributed enormously to a diverse culture - however the infrastructure of housing , schools and hospitals in some areas failed to cope with the 5 yr time frame that FOM created.
Reply5
damienyesterday In a country where its practically illegal to speak out against the immigration crisis and crimes immigrants commit... its not hard to believe whatever they want ya to.
Reply504
MICHELE22 hours ago The UN MIGRATION PACT was signed 11-12-18. This OPEN BORDERS TO 59 MILLION dangerous, economic, immigrants to us in the West by 2025, by law..This is phase 1 of the pact. Labour Party too, were in favour of this pact. UKIP opposes it & quite rightly so. ISLAM is out to destroy us & sadly so, is being encouraged to do so by the now Left Wing Leaning Tory Party. MSM also via this pact will be retrained to lie all the more to us general pact, they will not be allowed to refer to these islamists in a critical manner, whether that is continously gang raping our children or the constant terrorism. We need to stand up for our country. Vote correctly next time, its the only hope we have. Less
Reply19
Harley7 hours ago Again, this "anti-immigration" line is such a lark. Most people are perfectly OK with LEGAL immigration, especially where immigrants are NOT entitled to benefits. I am a legal immigrant in the UK. I'm an American. I'm married to an Englishman. I work and contribute to National Insurance, etc. Between the student visa I paid for to come over here to study on (~£1500 for the visa and NHS payment, plus £12,950 per year tuition) and switching to my spouse visa (close to £2000 with the cost of hiring an immigration solicitor to help fill out 64 pages of BS), I'm not entitled to benefits nor is my husband allowed to apply for them on my behalf, which is how it should be. We had to prove I could afford to live here under both visas, and then we had to prove he could financially take care of us both. Again, as it should be. It's the ILLEGAL immigrants, the EU immigrants which are granted benefits, and the gray area of not knowing just who the UK is letting in that is the actual issue with immigration
Jeremy Corbyn backs MPs' plan to force a second Brexit referendum
Jeremy Corbyn has endorsed a plan to force a second EU referendum as he bowed to pressure from Labour party members and MPs. Mr Corbyn wants the Government to give MPs the final say next week on a second referendum. If a majority back a referendum, Parliament could force Theresa May to hold a new in/out public vote that could lead to Brexit being reversed. Supporters of the so-called “People’s Vote” were jubilant tonight, describing Labour’s new policy as a “momentous” move that brought a referendum a “massive” step closer.
The first episode of Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil, 'We Quit', is on BBC Two on Monday, 28 January at 21:00 GMT and available on iPlayer afterwards.
Brexit: David Cameron warned by Donald Tusk over 'stupid referendum'
European Council President Donald Tusk told David Cameron to "get real" over his "stupid referendum" before the 2016 Brexit vote, a BBC documentary reveals.
Mr Tusk said Mr Cameron thought a referendum would not happen because of the coalition government with the Lib Dems. "[He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there's no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum," Mr Tusk said. "But then, surprisingly, he won and there was no coalition partner. So paradoxically David Cameron became the real victim of his own victory." Mr Tusk said he was "really amazed and even shocked" to learn from Mr Cameron that he decided to hold the referendum because of his own party.
Brexit: MPs and business leaders protest at May's identical ‘plan B’
Theresa May faced protests from MPs of all parties and from business leaders after unveiling a ‘plan B’ Brexit plan virtually identical to the one that crashed to a record defeat last week. The prime minister was accused of refusing to accept the reality of the crushing rejection of her plan, after vowing to again seek changes to the Irish border backstop – despite the EU repeatedly insisting it will not budge. Business leaders also warned the statement was “another bleak day”, as it took the UK one step closer to the disaster of crashing out of the EU with no agreement on 29 March.
Amber Rudd warns up to 40 ministers could quit Government if they are blocked from backing Brexit delay plan
Amber Rudd has warned Downing Street that dozens of ministers could quit if they are blocked from backing moves to delay Brexit, it emerged last night. The Work and Pensions Secretary is said to have argued that as many as 40 ministers want to vote for a rebel amendment designed to postpone Britain’s departure date and prevent a no-deal scenario. With the time to agree a deal running out, her comments will be seen as a sign of growing concerns among senior ministers that Britain could end up leaving without a deal.
Comments
Good luck with that.
I don't expect I would understand a word of it.
Your opinion will be interesting
The problem arises when someone ‘on the fence’ starts believing nonsense, for example the EU telling us what shape our bananas have to be, then base their vote on that.
I would suggest more people voted to leave on these assumptions than voted remain, as we knew what we were getting ( more of the same) when voting remain, and “ project fear” was better aimed at the Leave campaign.
Unfortunately, as is the case in the majority of online rhetoric, no facts either for or against the statement are offered, just slanderous name calling and pointing out the op has a Union Jack as their profile pic...
Personally I find most of the points hard to believe, I’m not going to trawl through the Lisbon Treaty though 😉.
There are many videos posted on YouTube by reliable sources, and a whole range of newspaper articles published by reliable sources.
I am certain that the likes of Boris Johnson wouldn't have been able to stop himself shouting this nonsense from the rooftops in the referendum campaign, if there was any chance of getting away with it,
The Lisbon Treaty was implemented almost 10 years ago, and I think that I read somewhere that it consists of 270 pages. You will probably need a law degree to make any sense of it.
How far should you go back?
How many other treaties should you read?
Lord Snooty would still be making political capital out of this, if there were any truth in it.
No knowledge of The Lisbon Treaty is required to decide that a small number of the claims are obviously true, and are common knowledge, as well knowing that a number of the claims are patently untrue.
I am not sure that much of it is relevant to where we are now, as we are set to leave anyway in March.
I'd also like to establish , which bits are true and which bits aren't ...even though the extensive document is probably beyond my capabilities of comprehension .
"The BBC also said it reviewed the polling figures used in the programme, and that while a YouGov poll on the day of the programme put the Conservatives ahead, Ms Abbott was "right to say other polls suggested Labour was either ahead or tied".
The BBC added: "We should have made that clear."
On the subject of polls, the one I quoted is referred to as The Peoples Vote Large Poll which included 25,537 people. The first page of their survey results, includes results of 10 surveys, the numbers involved in each poll excepting the one I quoted, goes from as little as 1070 up to 5043.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/brexit/survey-results
"She says the best way to rule out a no deal Brexit is to agree a deal with the EU. The only other way is to extend Article 50, something she says the EU is unlikely to agree to without a clear plan of how an agreement can be reached.
When people say the government should rule out no deal, she says they are essentially saying "we should revoke Article 50".
Revoking article 50 isn't the same as asking for an extension at all ...it's not favourable for the EU to have us exit without a deal either , so why wouldn't they agree to an extension ? Surely right minded people are saying , if we are going to implement Brexit properly and in a way that is not going to disadvantage the UK ( anymore than it might ) then we have to find an exit plan that the majority agrees with , and the only way to do that is to get an extension ?
We are able to unilaterally revoke Article 50. This means it is all cancelled and the Brexit plan is in the bin. We would stay in on the same terms, and have to redo it in the future, if we wanted to leave.
The EU have said they would extend Article 50, if they had good reason. Like a General Election, second referendum, or even to get the legislation through on an agreed deal. They have said they wont extend just for her to carry on thinking about a plan.
EU elections are due in May, and the MEPs take their seats on 2nd July. So if we extend past July we would need to put up candidates.
She agreed The Backstop, which is causing all the problems 13 months ago.
The referendum was in 2016. We invoked Article 50 in March 2017.
We have been negotiating for nearly 2 years and we haven't got to the end of phase one.
Phase one should have been done in a week at the most.
All we needed to do was work out how much money that we owed them. That we would give EU citizens the same rights that they currently have. Provided that this was reciprocated to Brits living in the EU. Finally resolve the Irish Border.
This should not have taken any more than one week.
The same solutions to the Irish border still apply, we just have to choose one. We could have chosen a solution 2 years ago. No additional solutions have been found.
We are spending over £4billion just in case there is no deal. This money will have been wasted if we avoid it.
The only clear majority in Parliament is for avoiding no deal.
She has been blackmailing MPs, threatening the leavers with choosing her deal or risking no Brexit, and the other side with voting for her deal, or risking no deal.
It has therefore suited her to run the clock down.
Most Brits think immigration is good for the UK
New figures suggest the majority of Brits think new immigrants are good for the UK and co-operation between nations is extremely important – but most of Europe doesn’t agree.
In a global opinion poll of over 10,000 people published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) ahead of Davos 2019, a large majority of people from all over the world rejected the notion that national improvement is a zero-sum game, and said that immigrants benefit their adopted country.
UK immigration – these shocking stats show the disconnect between rules and reality
The UK government recently announced its new immigration plans for post-Brexit Britain, which include removing preferential access for EU citizens and only allowing immigrants with an annual salary of at least £30,000 ($38,000) to work in Britain.
Immigrants are a bargain, fiscally speaking
The survey also asked about the role of technology in society, and found more people think it does more harm than good than vice versa.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/brits-think-immigration-good-uk-000148479.html
.”
simonyesterday
A highly educated engineer from Germany would be most welcome , a semi illiterate Somalian from a war torn Muslim country who has no hope of integrating is certainly not . It depends from which country they are coming from .
ReplyReplies (26)13412
christopheryesterday
Since August 2015, when Chancellor Merkel decided to open up the doors so that anyone in the world could call Europe home, Germany alone allowed more than 1 million of refugees and economic migrants into the country, according to the German Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). The British journal The Telegraph reported that the number of crimes committed by economic migrants and failed asylum seekers rose to 174,438 in 2016 – a surge of 52.7 per cent, according to the Ministry of the Interior, Thomas de Maiziere.
ReplyReplies (6)904
ItTakesATranslatoryesterday
True. Immigration of well educated, productive, and innovative persons is good for country. Immigration of poorly educated and dependent population groups, not so much. Unless of course your goal is to drive down the cost of low skill manual labor and pass the difference on to the countries tax payers.
ReplyReplies (2)793
Andy P23 hours ago
Does anyone actually know someone who took part in any of these recent polls that keep popping up suggesting the majority wants more immigration/the government to stop Brexit/ a second referendum etc. etc.?
skbyesterday
They never stop making up story's, yet another Poll / survey thats states lies, you can prove almost anything with selective questioning ?
ReplyReplies (1)1054
Davidyesterday
Again I wasn’t asked
ReplyReplies (5)1014
John12 hours ago
Depends on your definition of a immigrant, a skilled doctor from where ever fine no problems with that, a family of 10 from where ever who does not even speak the lingo no.
Reply14
Coldyesterday
"Most Brits think immigration is good for the UK"
Maybe "most Brits" should look into their own backyard first. Their country has been invaded by foreigners who have zero intention of assimilating to their culture and way of life.
ReplyReplies (6)1016
Joanna11 hours ago
absolutely but a major change in demographics over a short time period causes major issues. Britian is a very welcoming country and many migrants from the Huguenots to recent Eastern Europeans have contributed enormously to a diverse culture - however the infrastructure of housing , schools and hospitals in some areas failed to cope with the 5 yr time frame that FOM created.
Reply5
damienyesterday
In a country where its practically illegal to speak out against the immigration crisis and crimes immigrants commit... its not hard to believe whatever they want ya to.
Reply504
MICHELE22 hours ago
The UN MIGRATION PACT was signed 11-12-18. This OPEN BORDERS TO 59 MILLION dangerous, economic, immigrants to us in the West by 2025, by law..This is phase 1 of the pact. Labour Party too, were in favour of this pact. UKIP opposes it & quite rightly so. ISLAM is out to destroy us & sadly so, is being encouraged to do so by the now Left Wing Leaning Tory Party. MSM also via this pact will be retrained to lie all the more to us general pact, they will not be allowed to refer to these islamists in a critical manner, whether that is continously gang raping our children or the constant terrorism. We need to stand up for our country. Vote correctly next time, its the only hope we have.
Less
Reply19
Harley7 hours ago
Again, this "anti-immigration" line is such a lark. Most people are perfectly OK with LEGAL immigration, especially where immigrants are NOT entitled to benefits. I am a legal immigrant in the UK. I'm an American. I'm married to an Englishman. I work and contribute to National Insurance, etc. Between the student visa I paid for to come over here to study on (~£1500 for the visa and NHS payment, plus £12,950 per year tuition) and switching to my spouse visa (close to £2000 with the cost of hiring an immigration solicitor to help fill out 64 pages of BS), I'm not entitled to benefits nor is my husband allowed to apply for them on my behalf, which is how it should be. We had to prove I could afford to live here under both visas, and then we had to prove he could financially take care of us both. Again, as it should be. It's the ILLEGAL immigrants, the EU immigrants which are granted benefits, and the gray area of not knowing just who the UK is letting in that is the actual issue with immigration
Jeremy Corbyn backs MPs' plan to force a second Brexit referendum
Jeremy Corbyn has endorsed a plan to force a second EU referendum as he bowed to pressure from Labour party members and MPs.
Mr Corbyn wants the Government to give MPs the final say next week on a second referendum. If a majority back a referendum, Parliament could force Theresa May to hold a new in/out public vote that could lead to Brexit being reversed.
Supporters of the so-called “People’s Vote” were jubilant tonight, describing Labour’s new policy as a “momentous” move that brought a referendum a “massive” step closer.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/21/jeremy-corbyn-backs-mps-plan-force-second-brexit-referendum/
Brexit: David Cameron warned by Donald Tusk over 'stupid referendum'
European Council President Donald Tusk told David Cameron to "get real" over his "stupid referendum" before the 2016 Brexit vote, a BBC documentary reveals.
Mr Tusk said Mr Cameron thought a referendum would not happen because of the coalition government with the Lib Dems.
"[He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there's no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum," Mr Tusk said.
"But then, surprisingly, he won and there was no coalition partner. So paradoxically David Cameron became the real victim of his own victory."
Mr Tusk said he was "really amazed and even shocked" to learn from Mr Cameron that he decided to hold the referendum because of his own party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46951942
Theresa May faced protests from MPs of all parties and from business leaders after unveiling a ‘plan B’ Brexit plan virtually identical to the one that crashed to a record defeat last week.
The prime minister was accused of refusing to accept the reality of the crushing rejection of her plan, after vowing to again seek changes to the Irish border backstop – despite the EU repeatedly insisting it will not budge.
Business leaders also warned the statement was “another bleak day”, as it took the UK one step closer to the disaster of crashing out of the EU with no agreement on 29 March.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/brexit-mps-and-business-leaders-protest-at-mays-identical-‘plan-b’/ar-BBSyK5L?ocid=spartandhp
Amber Rudd has warned Downing Street that dozens of ministers could quit if they are blocked from backing moves to delay Brexit, it emerged last night.
The Work and Pensions Secretary is said to have argued that as many as 40 ministers want to vote for a rebel amendment designed to postpone Britain’s departure date and prevent a no-deal scenario.
With the time to agree a deal running out, her comments will be seen as a sign of growing concerns among senior ministers that Britain could end up leaving without a deal.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/amber-rudd-warns-up-to-40-ministers-could-quit-government-if-they-are-blocked-from-backing-brexit-delay-plan/ar-BBSyR6z?ocid=spartandhp