And it probably costs that much just to run the visa systemMoney. In Turkey they charged me for a visa as soon as i landed. They charged everyone going on holiday.
And it probably costs that much just to run the visa systemMoney. In Turkey they charged me for a visa as soon as i landed. They charged everyone going on holiday.
Aint that the truthThey didn't vote against the EU, they voted against foreign people. They've been told for the past 30 years that foreign people are responsible for all their woes. They are in for a shock when Brexit doesn't turn out to be the cure all they are expecting.
They call them much worse things than arse holes
Actually what I'm asking you to do is be informed about issues that you are commenting on, because you weren't at the start and are stubbornly refusing to search for what I have told you to now. I'm not your Mum, you can step out into the big wide world without me holding your hand.
I'm not saying you have to agree with my assessment that to trust the Conservatives with your rights you'd have to be a fool, but to dismiss a near decade of discussion – by people far more qualified than you and I – on the issue as Leave campaign level nonsense without having read any of it is a terrible place to start from. You'll forgive me for not wanting to do that.
Erm. I was alive and breathing during the EU campaign, I read party manifesto's. You seem to have come to some assumption that I don't know what I am talking about. You do know how the notion of a discussion works and burden of proof right? You make a claim, you are the one expected to provide evidence of it.
Let's try it and see if you can get the hang of it.
Here is a point:
May stated in her 11 point plan during the election campaign that workers would keep the same rights
Here is the proof:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...leave-care-elderly-relatives-tory-government/
Do you want to give it a try, or shall we just stop it here?
Erm. I was alive and breathing during the EU campaign, I read party manifesto's. You seem to have come to some assumption that I don't know what I am talking about. You do know how the notion of a discussion works and burden of proof right? You make a claim, you are the one expected to provide evidence of it.
Let's try it and see if you can get the hang of it.
Here is a point:
May stated in her 11 point plan during the election campaign that workers would keep the same rights
Here is the proof:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...leave-care-elderly-relatives-tory-government/
Do you want to give it a try, or shall we just stop it here?
xThis is awfully boring and really not the tone of discussion I want to have, so this will be my last response.
1) This is an issue that extends beyond the EU referendum, I don't know why you think otherwise seeing as I have repeatedly stressed that this has been a part of the Conservative agenda since at least 2010. The removal of the safeguards provided by EU membership, and by extension the seeming desire by the Brexit team to end the jurisdiction of the ECJ and European Court of Human Rights is related, but not the cause here. If you remember (you were living and breathing) Theresa May actually campaigned to Remain in the EU but leave the ECHR – a very tricky proposition. This is not a Brexit issue.
I don't remember linking this specifically to the EU? Leaving the EU has given the vehicle for which it to happen by. I don't remember saying anything to imply or specifically state that this was an EU specific issue or that leaving the ECHR wasn't being proposed before.
2) Your OP criticised devilish for '[making] it sound like Britain is some country that needs the EU to save itself from fecking up human rights, the foundations which seem to based in pure hysteria rather than actual factual or historic basis'. Your 'point' presented in this post is about Theresa May pledging (funny how you trust a politician when it suits eh?) to protect workers rights, and your proof is the same.
No. I have given proof of the person that was accused of wanting to take those rights away specifically saying that isn't the plan. You have claimed that is not the case but then had provided 0 evidence or explanation as to why that is so, which finally you have started to.
Your 'proof' is from May (the month), in June May (the person) launched an attack on pesky Human Rights laws that get in the way of detaining terrorists and threatened to 'rip them up'. May's June speech took criticism from the UN whose Human Rights Chief who described them as a 'gift' to tyrants, and for the transparently cynical nature of their timing coming days after a terrorist attack in the lead up to the election – Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein's opinion is well worth reading on this issue, but as I'm sure you've come across it the extensive research you've done I won't bother linking you to it.
I don't have a problem with May making it easier for terroism suspects to be deported within reason when cases like Abu Hamza are considered, who couldn't be deported to the US because he god forbid, might have faced the death penalty if found guilty. If that is classed as a system that is working, then I would rather we don't have that system and find a better one. I also find Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein's opinion highly ironic considering he with the odd exception remains utterly silent on what are actual human rights abuses happening in parts of Africa, the Middle East and in China etc etc. From my limited understanding what she proposed would not be against the UDHR, simply the ECHR although i'd be happily proved wrong on that.
So in your short post attempting to demonstrate your credentials you seem to show a misunderstanding of what Human Rights actually are, you've managed to misrepresent Theresa May's stance on them (both historical and current), and you seem to have misunderstood why the Conservatives have built up a reputation for not being trusted on them.
Lmao what? My post in response to devlish addressed 2 of his points, firstly around immigrants and the ECJ, and secondly about workers rights. Both which come under the ECHR and are also fleshed out via directives. The point being that a country which wanted the UDHR to be legally enforcable is an odd choice of a country to claim is going to as soon as another power loses control over its policy veer towards suddenly breaking them all.
BTW, whilst we're getting sarcy about burdens of proof I'm sure you're aware that it is considered unnecessary to provide citations for common knowledge. The Conservative attitude to the European Court of Human Rights, the Human Rights Act, and the European Convention of Human Rights certainly should be common knowledge, and if you don't know it it's easy enough to find out. Don't act like your ignorance (feigned or actual) towards it is a valid opinion to hold.
I think it's a huge stretch to say someone who has issues with the ECHR and HRA is full stop against human rights. I seriously didn't realise you were trying to imply that simply having issue with those means you are anti-human rights because it's not an obvious logical jump for me.
Adios.
Imagine how slow 27 governments workCould be, but few governments work quickly. I belive decisions like this need to be taken at EU level to stop competitive sacrifice of working rights
They didn't vote against the EU, they voted against foreign people.
I have to get visas every time I go to Nigeria and Angola - cost about €500 each visit - even though I directly employ local Nigerians and Angolans.
Can't say as I've ever seen 000's of illegal, economic migrants risking their lives across oceans and war zones to get to those two countries..
Of course it's about money.
And keeping out arse holes who might decide to live there but then spend all their time bitching about what shitty people Nigerians and Angolans are.
Keep telling yourself that until you believe it.
Imagine how slow 27 governments work
You make it sound like Britain is some country that needs the EU to save itself from fecking up human rights, the foundations which seem to based in pure hysteria rather than actual factual or historic basis. Britain was one of the few countries PUSHING for there to be legal ramifications for breaking the UN's Universal Decleration of Human rights for christ sake.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36434855
The UK is saying that it will allow anyone currently living here from the EU to apply for settled status which would entitle them to the NHS etc. The EU doing that to current UK immigrants over there would not be at all the same as the UK isn't doing that.
Someone needs to, hopefully the fruit pickers can get a payrise so they are at least on 3 quid an hour.Tories to improve or at least protect workers rights?
Depends how you look at it. 27 loons that all share the same ideology all coming to an agreement in 7 years is not great.I know, but any decision they take has real heft
Are you saying retirees like Paul don't ever buy anything locally?If the UK starts making restraints on immigrants then its only fair for the EU to do the same.Most EU immigrants residing in the UK are young, they are taxpayers and therefore they give a beneficial contribution to society. Can you say the same about the UK citizens who had retired in Spain, France and beyond?
Someone needs to, hopefully the fruit pickers can get a payrise so they are at least on 3 quid an hour.
Depends how you look at it. 27 loons that all share the same ideology all coming to an agreement in 7 years is not great.
I have no idea what you mean, but there are graduates working towards careers in the EU.One thing I would like to understand further is how graduates here will be cheated out of their futures with Brexit?
Do we already have a lot of graduates working in jobs abroad fluent in European languages or is this like the fairy story we were told at school with computers coming in we would only be working about 4 hours a day?
Tories to improve or at least protect workers rights?
Good luck with that.
One thing I would like to understand further is how graduates here will be cheated out of their futures with Brexit?
Do we already have a lot of graduates working in jobs abroad fluent in European languages or is this like the fairy story we were told at school with computers coming in we would only be working about 4 hours a day?
One thing I would like to understand further is how graduates here will be cheated out of their futures with Brexit?
One thing I would like to understand further is how graduates here will be cheated out of their futures with Brexit?
Do we already have a lot of graduates working in jobs abroad fluent in European languages or is this like the fairy story we were told at school with computers coming in we would only be working about 4 hours a day?
I wonder what the next ridiculous Brexit claim will be, now we've had "no one British works in Europe anyway".
Why would they want to damage the country that badly?Well as the re-moaners say, after Brexit, the UK will be so bad that nobody will want to come here... for many Brexiteers that's 'job done'!
I have no idea what you mean, but there are graduates working towards careers in the EU.
If it helps in anyway, I have one friend working in Brussles and 2 friends working elsewhere in Europe. Anecdotal. I don't know what the numbers are.
Around 1 million UK citizens live in Europe
Edit
![]()
Why would they want to damage the country that badly?
They will still have to live here.
The UK was never as great as the flag waving Little Englunders believed but it still has a fair way to fall and I can see no reason why anyone would help that fall in the name of patriotism, it's beyond insanity.
I doubt it, you've usually got to be there for 12 months at least before you'd be counted as resident and be gone at least 12 months to drop off the UK figures and a full 3 years to be declared not ordinarily resident in the UK. Those figures look like the proper expats living and schooling, working or retired there.Does that figure include the kids who work the summer in Ibiza etc?
I doubt it, you've usually got to be there for 12 months at least before you'd be counted as resident and be gone at least 12 months to drop off the UK figures and a full 3 years to be declared not ordinarily resident in the UK. Those figures look like the proper expats living and schooling, working or retired there.
Why would they want to damage the country that badly?
That's the whole point for many people, it wouldn't be damaging the country it would be saving the country from a United States of Europe, with a Euro currency, dominated by Germany, a concept fought against in two world wars and a concept no-one in the 1970's voted for when joining the Common Market, but nevertheless over the years its has been being formed, by stealth, by sleepwalking.
The majority of people (albeit a slim one) in the UK woke up just in time.
Leaving aside immigration issues and the connotations (that even Blair has recognised, belatedly of course), the UK will never give up the Pound (Sterling) and as such would always be in division two of the EU. A 'soft' Brexit would put us in division 3, so for many its better we breakaway and form our own Premier League.
I think the Germans of WW2 had slightly more than a common currency and boring bureaucracy in mind.
Indeed, but of course we have every reason to suppose they have changed their minds now... ask the Greeks about that one!
Indeed, but of course we have every reason to suppose they have changed their minds now... ask the Greeks about that one!
Ah yes, those evil Germans sending billions of euros of their own money to Greece. Clear sign of a fourth reich..