Another referendum is as useless as voting for the Brexit Party.
Marketing it as a "final solution" is nonsense. It is just re-opening old wounds to no good effect. People campaigned for 41 years for a 2nd referendum. And you believe people would accept the result of a 3rd one, having never implemented the result of the 2nd?
we need a solution that works for the country. Compromise. It exists, just not for people with blinkers on. That will mean enraging people like Farage AND you Haysie (and me, as it happens). But life will go on.
Do you think any compromise is likely, in the near future?
Another referendum is as useless as voting for the Brexit Party.
Marketing it as a "final solution" is nonsense. It is just re-opening old wounds to no good effect. People campaigned for 41 years for a 2nd referendum. And you believe people would accept the result of a 3rd one, having never implemented the result of the 2nd?
we need a solution that works for the country. Compromise. It exists, just not for people with blinkers on. That will mean enraging people like Farage AND you Haysie (and me, as it happens). But life will go on.
Do you think any compromise is likely, in the near future?
I really do not know.
The only effect Farage seems to have had is to stop the Tories talking to Labour, and him saying he will oppose any Tory who dares to vote for May's bill (can't anyone see that for Brexiteers it is a step forward?)
But we live in mad times. Cannot rule anything out.
Terrified child refugees stuck in Calais camp 'thanks to broken Tory promises' EXCLUSIVE: Lord Alf Dubs visits the young migrants, living in tents and scavenging to survive, who have been denied a life in the UK
“They collapsed from dehydration. Some drank petrol as they were so thirsty – which killed them.”
Another referendum is as useless as voting for the Brexit Party.
Marketing it as a "final solution" is nonsense. It is just re-opening old wounds to no good effect. People campaigned for 41 years for a 2nd referendum. And you believe people would accept the result of a 3rd one, having never implemented the result of the 2nd?
we need a solution that works for the country. Compromise. It exists, just not for people with blinkers on. That will mean enraging people like Farage AND you Haysie (and me, as it happens). But life will go on.
Do you think any compromise is likely, in the near future?
I really do not know.
The only effect Farage seems to have had is to stop the Tories talking to Labour, and him saying he will oppose any Tory who dares to vote for May's bill (can't anyone see that for Brexiteers it is a step forward?)
But we live in mad times. Cannot rule anything out.
The Withdrawal Bill is going backwards. Five Tories, including David Davis, who voted for it last time, have come out today and said they wont vote for it this time. It is losing support. If you had a choice of no deal, revoke, or confirmatory vote, which one would you choose? This may well be the choice we end up with. I think that some people confuse my views. I voted remain, but I am not a referendum fanatic. If we were leaving I think that leaving with the closest ties to the Eu as possible would be the best option. So, I would choose Norway plus a Customs Union. In reality this would almost mean staying. So if we chose this option we would be almost remaining, but without a say.
A Norway plus deal is so close to remaining, we would be much better off by taking that small step to remain in.
I am suggesting a confirmatory vote as the means to providing a solution, not because I think it is ideal.
I think we are moving away from, rather than getting closer to a solution, with no compromise in sight.
The closest thing to a solution appears to be adding a confirmatory vote to the Withdrawal Bill, and it probably gets through.
Another referendum is as useless as voting for the Brexit Party.
Marketing it as a "final solution" is nonsense. It is just re-opening old wounds to no good effect. People campaigned for 41 years for a 2nd referendum. And you believe people would accept the result of a 3rd one, having never implemented the result of the 2nd?
we need a solution that works for the country. Compromise. It exists, just not for people with blinkers on. That will mean enraging people like Farage AND you Haysie (and me, as it happens). But life will go on.
Do you think any compromise is likely, in the near future?
I really do not know.
The only effect Farage seems to have had is to stop the Tories talking to Labour, and him saying he will oppose any Tory who dares to vote for May's bill (can't anyone see that for Brexiteers it is a step forward?)
But we live in mad times. Cannot rule anything out.
The Withdrawal Bill is going backwards. Five Tories, including David Davis, who voted for it last time, have come out today and said they wont vote for it this time. It is losing support. If you had a choice of no deal, revoke, or confirmatory vote, which one would you choose? This may well be the choice we end up with. I think that some people confuse my views. I voted remain, but I am not a referendum fanatic. If we were leaving I think that leaving with the closest ties to the Eu as possible would be the best option. So, I would choose Norway plus a Customs Union. In reality this would almost mean staying. So if we chose this option we would be almost remaining, but without a say.
A Norway plus deal is so close to remaining, we would be much better off by taking that small step to remain in.
I am suggesting a confirmatory vote as the means to providing a solution, not because I think it is ideal.
I think we are moving away from, rather than getting closer to a solution, with no compromise in sight.
The closest thing to a solution appears to be adding a confirmatory vote to the Withdrawal Bill, and it probably gets through.
A lot of people say this. But i think it is important to separate economic from other issues. Would we have close economic ties-of course. But then no-one dares to admit that, when we leave, we will be HOPING for the same deals as the EU has with the rest of the world. And that, regardless of how we leave, the UK is still going to be in Europe, not its own Continent.
What we will gain is the freedom not to join the euro, to keep our own army autonomous from a European army etc. In short, we might be part of an EEC, but not an EU.
Are the benefits worth it? I don't know. But we need to concentrate on HOW and WHEN we leave, not IF.
Terrified child refugees stuck in Calais camp 'thanks to broken Tory promises' EXCLUSIVE: Lord Alf Dubs visits the young migrants, living in tents and scavenging to survive, who have been denied a life in the UK
“They collapsed from dehydration. Some drank petrol as they were so thirsty – which killed them.”
Terrified child refugees stuck in Calais camp 'thanks to broken Tory promises' EXCLUSIVE: Lord Alf Dubs visits the young migrants, living in tents and scavenging to survive, who have been denied a life in the UK
“They collapsed from dehydration. Some drank petrol as they were so thirsty – which killed them.”
Another referendum is as useless as voting for the Brexit Party.
Marketing it as a "final solution" is nonsense. It is just re-opening old wounds to no good effect. People campaigned for 41 years for a 2nd referendum. And you believe people would accept the result of a 3rd one, having never implemented the result of the 2nd?
we need a solution that works for the country. Compromise. It exists, just not for people with blinkers on. That will mean enraging people like Farage AND you Haysie (and me, as it happens). But life will go on.
Do you think any compromise is likely, in the near future?
I really do not know.
The only effect Farage seems to have had is to stop the Tories talking to Labour, and him saying he will oppose any Tory who dares to vote for May's bill (can't anyone see that for Brexiteers it is a step forward?)
But we live in mad times. Cannot rule anything out.
The Withdrawal Bill is going backwards. Five Tories, including David Davis, who voted for it last time, have come out today and said they wont vote for it this time. It is losing support. If you had a choice of no deal, revoke, or confirmatory vote, which one would you choose? This may well be the choice we end up with. I think that some people confuse my views. I voted remain, but I am not a referendum fanatic. If we were leaving I think that leaving with the closest ties to the Eu as possible would be the best option. So, I would choose Norway plus a Customs Union. In reality this would almost mean staying. So if we chose this option we would be almost remaining, but without a say.
A Norway plus deal is so close to remaining, we would be much better off by taking that small step to remain in.
I am suggesting a confirmatory vote as the means to providing a solution, not because I think it is ideal.
I think we are moving away from, rather than getting closer to a solution, with no compromise in sight.
The closest thing to a solution appears to be adding a confirmatory vote to the Withdrawal Bill, and it probably gets through.
A lot of people say this. But i think it is important to separate economic from other issues. Would we have close economic ties-of course. But then no-one dares to admit that, when we leave, we will be HOPING for the same deals as the EU has with the rest of the world. And that, regardless of how we leave, the UK is still going to be in Europe, not its own Continent.
What we will gain is the freedom not to join the euro, to keep our own army autonomous from a European army etc. In short, we might be part of an EEC, but not an EU.
Are the benefits worth it? I don't know. But we need to concentrate on HOW and WHEN we leave, not IF.
Your argument solely depends on compromise being reached, when it seems unlikely.
So in the event of no compromise being reached which choice would you make?
How do you think any compromise could be reached?
We already have the option of not joining the euro, not sure if a European army is likely in my lifetime, or ever.
We will not be trading with the EU full stop, unless we pass the Withdrawal Bill.
Passing the Withdrawal Bill is the current problem.
Terrified child refugees stuck in Calais camp 'thanks to broken Tory promises' EXCLUSIVE: Lord Alf Dubs visits the young migrants, living in tents and scavenging to survive, who have been denied a life in the UK
“They collapsed from dehydration. Some drank petrol as they were so thirsty – which killed them.”
Terrified child refugees stuck in Calais camp 'thanks to broken Tory promises' EXCLUSIVE: Lord Alf Dubs visits the young migrants, living in tents and scavenging to survive, who have been denied a life in the UK
“They collapsed from dehydration. Some drank petrol as they were so thirsty – which killed them.”
Surely the Parents of these Child refugees are responsible for the welfare of their Children.
In an ideal world, yes.
But if they are (for whatever reason) incapable, I do not wish to punish their children by some form of ethnic cleansing.
So where are their Parents, did they let them travel across continents by themselves.
Perhaps, like in a vast no of tragic cases, parents are no longer with us or even if they are, probably not in a position to go as well/ fund the trip for themselves/be able to escape their dreadful circumstances...most parents would send their children away( to try to get a better life) as a last resort, not by choice, surely?
Terrified child refugees stuck in Calais camp 'thanks to broken Tory promises' EXCLUSIVE: Lord Alf Dubs visits the young migrants, living in tents and scavenging to survive, who have been denied a life in the UK
“They collapsed from dehydration. Some drank petrol as they were so thirsty – which killed them.”
Surely the Parents of these Child refugees are responsible for the welfare of their Children.
It really amazes me why anyone would choose to comment on an article without at least reading it. Nothing could be easier, these days you just have to click on a link. You used to have to look stuff up in an encyclopedia. Here we go, to save you doing it, I will click on the link and pick a couple of bits out for you.
Alf Dubs shakes his head in despair as he listens to a 12-year-old refugee pleading for him to help save him and his friends. Three years ago Alf – himself a child refugee who escaped the **** – won a guarantee from Theresa May that Britain would provide sanctuary for almost 500 children fleeing the horrors of war.
“These are the forgotten children on Britain’s doorstep,” he says. “We’ve abandoned them. I’m so angry about it.”
Alf, 86, crossed the Channel to meet child refugees still being denied a place here – three years after he won a law change that should have let them in.
He stood side-by-side with terrified, hopeless youngsters living in tents and scavenging to survive.
Photos of the lifeless body of Syrian three-year-old Alan Kurdi, washed up on a Turkish beach in 2015, sparked worldwide outrage over the refugee crisis.
As horrified Brits demanded action, the Tories agreed to take in lone children who made it to Europe, and resettle them with foster carers – a pledge won from them by Lord Dubs. Himself a Czech refugee who reached the UK, aged six, in the Kindertransport rescue plan that saved 10,000 children from the ****, he piloted an amendment to the Immigration Bill in 2016.
But all his efforts seem so far to have been in vain. Fewer than half of the 480 children the Government pledged to house have been brought here. Only 200 spaces are so far thought to have been filled.
And 30 children already granted the right to come to the UK have languished in lodgings on the northern French coast for up to 18 months, while dozens more wait – and hope.
Lord Dubs took us to witness their plight after lone children sleeping rough in Calais doubled in three months. Those as young as 10 are being pushed from visible areas to sleep in landfill sites or in forests as security is ramped up. Every day they walk for 10 hours, hoping to stow away in lorries or trains. Ahmed is just 12. He left Afghanistan aged 10, after the Taliban killed his father and ordered him to join them.
Telling of his escape, the aspiring mathematician says: “It took me two years to get here, across the Sahara. On the trek, 120 children I was with died in front of me. “They collapsed from dehydration. Some drank petrol as they were so thirsty – which killed them.”
“Please,” he begs, “I want a future and to be safe.” For now, he lives deep in the forest outside the port town. But he says he can never sleep in the same place twice – for fear police will find the camp and rip up his tent. Ahmed is missing two teeth and does not even have a toothbrush.
"We have to keep moving – they take all our belongings, including our sleeping bags. If we resist, they beat us up,” he says. But it is not just the police the children fear – adult refugees, says Ahmed, can also be a danger. “We’re young so they steal our stuff and hit us. I can’t defend myself.” His companion Abdul, 13, also an Afghan, says: “England is not heaven, but it’s better than this. Here, they call us vermin – so we hide like rats.” The pair are among thousands of children who have fled alone from war-torn countries. Hundreds arrive in Calais – the closest point to reach the UK.
As we walk around the largest camp, two miles from where Ahmed sleeps, there is a stench of urine. Wearing clothes three sizes too small, children eat from bins. Their small green and blue tents are pitched under trees beside a motorway. We are told there is a problem in the squalid camp with adults sexually abusing the young boys. One 13-year-old tells us: “We don’t like to stay here as we’re scared of being raped.” Visibly upset at what he is seeing and hearing, Lord Dubs confesses: “It makes me so sad on their behalf. I’m furious the Government are doing so little. My heart is breaking.”
Terrified child refugees stuck in Calais camp 'thanks to broken Tory promises' EXCLUSIVE: Lord Alf Dubs visits the young migrants, living in tents and scavenging to survive, who have been denied a life in the UK
“They collapsed from dehydration. Some drank petrol as they were so thirsty – which killed them.”
Surely the Parents of these Child refugees are responsible for the welfare of their Children.
Of course they should heres an example.
Mohammed, 16, was approved on the scheme nine months ago. He left Ethiopia at 14, after his family were branded traitors by the government. With tears in his eyes, he tells Lord Dubs: “They threw my dad in jail and poisoned my mother. She died. I was 10. When my dad was released he took me to Sudan, then on to Libya. “We stayed three months in a camp run by traffickers. He became unwell and died in front of me. I saw dead bodies of children every day.” Mohammed used his father’s cash to pay smugglers to get him to France.
Terrified child refugees stuck in Calais camp 'thanks to broken Tory promises' EXCLUSIVE: Lord Alf Dubs visits the young migrants, living in tents and scavenging to survive, who have been denied a life in the UK
“They collapsed from dehydration. Some drank petrol as they were so thirsty – which killed them.”
I don't care whether or not Mr Farage went on a National Front march when he was 16. It is irrelevant. Similarly, I do not care whether or not he walked away from a road accident when he was a passenger (not the driver). Although his excuses sounded like the slimy politician he is.
But breaking rules about party funding? And trying to avoid answering questions, but admitting to misdeclaring his expenses (not for the first time) in the EU? And it looks like an amount of money that most of us will never see in our lifetime. Not easy to "forget" a £4million house. Or a car. Or a bodyguard. Or that Farage never got round to leaving the EU Parliament. Forgot to declare his income. But never forgot to collect his salary for not turning up to his job.
When will people realise that he is the very person he claims to despise?
At the moment he is MR Democracy ......... nobody else is. Smears & Milkshake are from Remainers the Bully Boys that are the EU Political Union. Vote for who you believe.
At the moment he is MR Democracy ......... nobody else is. Smears & Milkshake are from Remainers the Bully Boys that are the EU Political Union. Vote for who you believe.
Mr Democracy, whilst he's lining his pockets with all of the delusional people paying £25? each to go to his rallies...reminds me of one of those slimy preachers in USA who prey on the vulnerable for cash, giving them false hope..sad really..
Comments
The only effect Farage seems to have had is to stop the Tories talking to Labour, and him saying he will oppose any Tory who dares to vote for May's bill (can't anyone see that for Brexiteers it is a step forward?)
But we live in mad times. Cannot rule anything out.
It is losing support.
If you had a choice of no deal, revoke, or confirmatory vote, which one would you choose?
This may well be the choice we end up with.
I think that some people confuse my views.
I voted remain, but I am not a referendum fanatic.
If we were leaving I think that leaving with the closest ties to the Eu as possible would be the best option.
So, I would choose Norway plus a Customs Union.
In reality this would almost mean staying.
So if we chose this option we would be almost remaining, but without a say.
A Norway plus deal is so close to remaining, we would be much better off by taking that small step to remain in.
I am suggesting a confirmatory vote as the means to providing a solution, not because I think it is ideal.
I think we are moving away from, rather than getting closer to a solution, with no compromise in sight.
The closest thing to a solution appears to be adding a confirmatory vote to the Withdrawal Bill, and it probably gets through.
What we will gain is the freedom not to join the euro, to keep our own army autonomous from a European army etc. In short, we might be part of an EEC, but not an EU.
Are the benefits worth it? I don't know. But we need to concentrate on HOW and WHEN we leave, not IF.
But if they are (for whatever reason) incapable, I do not wish to punish their children by some form of ethnic cleansing.
So in the event of no compromise being reached which choice would you make?
How do you think any compromise could be reached?
We already have the option of not joining the euro, not sure if a European army is likely in my lifetime, or ever.
We will not be trading with the EU full stop, unless we pass the Withdrawal Bill.
Passing the Withdrawal Bill is the current problem.
No deal doesn't really exist.
Can't stand the man personally, but this sort of response is plain wrong.
It really amazes me why anyone would choose to comment on an article without at least reading it.
Nothing could be easier, these days you just have to click on a link.
You used to have to look stuff up in an encyclopedia.
Here we go, to save you doing it, I will click on the link and pick a couple of bits out for you.
Alf Dubs shakes his head in despair as he listens to a 12-year-old refugee pleading for him to help save him and his friends.
Three years ago Alf – himself a child refugee who escaped the **** – won a guarantee from Theresa May that Britain would provide sanctuary for almost 500 children fleeing the horrors of war.
“These are the forgotten children on Britain’s doorstep,” he says. “We’ve abandoned them. I’m so angry about it.”
Alf, 86, crossed the Channel to meet child refugees still being denied a place here – three years after he won a law change that should have let them in.
He stood side-by-side with terrified, hopeless youngsters living in tents and scavenging to survive.
Photos of the lifeless body of Syrian three-year-old Alan Kurdi, washed up on a Turkish beach in 2015, sparked worldwide outrage over the refugee crisis.
As horrified Brits demanded action, the Tories agreed to take in lone children who made it to Europe, and resettle them with foster carers – a pledge won from them by Lord Dubs.
Himself a Czech refugee who reached the UK, aged six, in the Kindertransport rescue plan that saved 10,000 children from the ****, he piloted an amendment to the Immigration Bill in 2016.
But all his efforts seem so far to have been in vain. Fewer than half of the 480 children the Government pledged to house have been brought here.
Only 200 spaces are so far thought to have been filled.
And 30 children already granted the right to come to the UK have languished in lodgings on the northern French coast for up to 18 months, while dozens more wait – and hope.
Lord Dubs took us to witness their plight after lone children sleeping rough in Calais doubled in three months.
Those as young as 10 are being pushed from visible areas to sleep in landfill sites or in forests as security is ramped up.
Every day they walk for 10 hours, hoping to stow away in lorries or trains.
Ahmed is just 12. He left Afghanistan aged 10, after the Taliban killed his father and ordered him to join them.
Telling of his escape, the aspiring mathematician says: “It took me two years to get here, across the Sahara. On the trek, 120 children I was with died in front of me.
“They collapsed from dehydration. Some drank petrol as they were so thirsty – which killed them.”
“Please,” he begs, “I want a future and to be safe.” For now, he lives deep in the forest outside the port town.
But he says he can never sleep in the same place twice – for fear police will find the camp and rip up his tent.
Ahmed is missing two teeth and does not even have a toothbrush.
"We have to keep moving – they take all our belongings, including our sleeping bags. If we resist, they beat us up,” he says.
But it is not just the police the children fear – adult refugees, says Ahmed, can also be a danger.
“We’re young so they steal our stuff and hit us. I can’t defend myself.”
His companion Abdul, 13, also an Afghan, says: “England is not heaven, but it’s better than this. Here, they call us vermin – so we hide like rats.”
The pair are among thousands of children who have fled alone from war-torn countries. Hundreds arrive in Calais – the closest point to reach the UK.
As we walk around the largest camp, two miles from where Ahmed sleeps, there is a stench of urine.
Wearing clothes three sizes too small, children eat from bins. Their small green and blue tents are pitched under trees beside a motorway.
We are told there is a problem in the squalid camp with adults sexually abusing the young boys. One 13-year-old tells us: “We don’t like to stay here as we’re scared of being raped.”
Visibly upset at what he is seeing and hearing, Lord Dubs confesses: “It makes me so sad on their behalf. I’m furious the Government are doing so little. My heart is breaking.”
The youngsters get no schooling.
Of course they should heres an example.
Mohammed, 16, was approved on the scheme nine months ago. He left Ethiopia at 14, after his family were branded traitors by the government.
With tears in his eyes, he tells Lord Dubs: “They threw my dad in jail and poisoned my mother. She died. I was 10. When my dad was released he took me to Sudan, then on to Libya.
“We stayed three months in a camp run by traffickers. He became unwell and died in front of me. I saw dead bodies of children every day.”
Mohammed used his father’s cash to pay smugglers to get him to France.
I don't care whether or not Mr Farage went on a National Front march when he was 16. It is irrelevant. Similarly, I do not care whether or not he walked away from a road accident when he was a passenger (not the driver). Although his excuses sounded like the slimy politician he is.
But breaking rules about party funding? And trying to avoid answering questions, but admitting to misdeclaring his expenses (not for the first time) in the EU? And it looks like an amount of money that most of us will never see in our lifetime. Not easy to "forget" a £4million house. Or a car. Or a bodyguard. Or that Farage never got round to leaving the EU Parliament. Forgot to declare his income. But never forgot to collect his salary for not turning up to his job.
When will people realise that he is the very person he claims to despise?