EU referendum opinion poll.

[digitalalba]

It is going to take at least 2 years for new agreements to be put in place between the out vote and the actual move.

 

Forget the German manufacturing a bike. Think of the politicians deciding what the new rules are and the markets shitting themselves about everything.

Why 2 years? And even if it did, does that mean no one will want to trade in the meantime?

 

Do you think the politicians aren't good enough to workout what the new rules should be?

[digitalalba]

Why would those Migrants at Calais look elsewhere? They want to be in England to join family members already there. 

Because we will have the option, as we do today, to not let them in. It is currently possible, but unlikely, for them to aquire a EU passport and then we would have no choice. If we pull out, we can say not to anyone who doesn't have a British passport. We can create our own refugee/asylum seeker/immigrant quota. We can choose our own path, not be dictated too by EU dictators.

 

In time, the invaders in Calais and Dunkirk will get fed up and seek alternative 'refuge'.

[Rincewind]

Or be arrested or die then it will not be our concern. Let France deal with them, we have enough already.

[Darkon84]

Or be arrested or die then it will not be our concern. Let France deal with them, we have enough already.

 

What's wrong with staying in France though? Why the huge need to camp at Calais and try to force their way (illegally) in to Britain? What would you suggest, let every single one of them in tomorrow without the correct checks?

[Guest MattP]

Or be arrested or die then it will not be our concern. Let France deal with them, we have enough already.

 

Why should refugees be allowed to live in whatever country they want? They have already passed through numerous safe countries and are in one now, why should they be allowed into England and the British taxpayer foot the bill? I'm not allowed to just go and live in any country in the World and neither should they be.

 

What would you do?

[Rincewind]

What's wrong with staying in France though? Why the huge need to camp at Calais and try to force their way (illegally) in to Britain? What would you suggest, let every single one of them in tomorrow without the correct checks?

Probably all the freebies they hear about. The word spreads quickly in these impoverished countries. They won't get free housing and benefits in France. Like I said let France have them. Nothing wrong with them staying in France illegally or legally  from the UK's hard working taxpayers  POV.

[Guest MattP]

What would you do Ken?

[Rincewind]

Send them all back.

[Guest MattP]

Send them all back.

 

To where? We can't even be certain where a lot of them are from.

[Rincewind]

Just stamp reject on their head.

[Guest MattP]

So we are just back at that point then where when asked a reasonable question you just reply with numerous sarcastic answers because you don't have the guts to take a position.

[Ross-Kemp]

So we are just back at that point then where when asked a reasonable question you just reply with numerous sarcastic answers because you don't have the guts to take a position.

This is becoming a recurring theme.

If these people are genuine refugees, then they should seek shelter in the first safe country they land in, not come to England because their family is there.

I've got an uncle in Australlia, doesn't mean they'll just let me move in.

Ken, genuinely, what would you do?

[Rincewind]

I have answered several times. I am not qualified to answer. My answers are not sarcastic I have seen similar before.

There are some on here who do not want the refugees here for various reasons and I was just saying that they may be right.

I do not wish to argue any more. I have been wrong.

[digitalalba]

There's a lot of sympathisers happy to take a family into their own homes. That'll be fun. Wait till they get raped, robbed and buggered.

[Strokes]

There's a lot of sympathisers happy to take a family into their own homes. That'll be fun. Wait till they get raped, robbed and buggered.

I'm not sure it will be fun if people with good intentions get raped tbh.

[Rincewind]

We all take the same chance with whoever we meet. Bad people do not come with labels on their head no matter how much you want them to.

[Strokes]

We all take the same chance with whoever we meet. Bad people do not come with labels on their head no matter how much you want them to.

You're right Ken but I don't think people's concerns are bought from prejudice, it's an alarming amount of people to process and I think a cautious approach is more sensible. They don't need to come here anymore than any other safe haven and people desire to see them here, over any other developed country is a little odd.

[Guest MattP]

So again Ken, what would you do about the refugees/migrants in Calais?

It's surely not that hard to give an answer.

[Rincewind]

You're right Ken but I don't think people's concerns are bought from prejudice, it's an alarming amount of people to process and I think a cautious approach is more sensible. They don't need to come here anymore than any other safe haven and people desire to see them here, over any other developed country is a little odd.

Yes True. There is no easy solution while the refugees keep appearing. Maybe they should take a look at the root causes of which there are many according to ones viewpoint and disagreements in the world today and years before. I do not have an answer. If I did I would not be living in a pokey flat in Leicester.

[digitalalba]

I'm not sure it will be fun if people with good intentions get raped tbh.

Not every refugee is bad, but some are, and when they are, they can be evil. The sympathisers think they're all good, and even shout people down when they show concern, like for example what happened in Germany on new years eve or the soaring rape epidemic in Sweden.

 

Maybe we have to destroy our own society before we can make it nice?

[Rincewind]

Not every refugee is bad, but some are, and when they are, they can be evil. The sympathisers think they're all good, and even shout people down when they show concern, like for example what happened in Germany on new years eve or the soaring rape epidemic in Sweden.

 

Maybe we have to destroy our own society before we can make it nice?

I do not think they are all good. I also think there are a lot of desperate people amongst them. I have seen and heard accounts of people that have been over to the camps and have had a nervous breakdown after seeing the conditions the refugees are living under.

The ones committing the acts may not be with these but travelled via other routes. Some of the refugees.can hardly walk and only have the clothes they stand up in.

Of course this does the excuse the crimes committed but the poor vetting system is not the fault of the many that are suffering.

We have only seen a fraction of what conditions are like through the media. They obviously cannot show it all either because of time/space and content.

[Alf Bentley]

This is becoming a recurring theme.

If these people are genuine refugees, then they should seek shelter in the first safe country they land in, not come to England because their family is there.

I've got an uncle in Australlia, doesn't mean they'll just let me move in.

Ken, genuinely, what would you do?

 

 

You're not a refugee. If you were and if your uncle offered to support you in Australia, I presume the Aussie Govt should instead insist that you go to France, even if you knew nobody there and didn't speak French - as it's the nearest country?

 

During WW2, when Europe was occupied by the Nazis, if the 6m Jews had escaped, where should they have gone? Switzerland? The UK would have been one of the closest safe places, of course. Would the rest of the world have been justified in saying "all you 6m Jews have got to go to the UK"? Or maybe, comparatively wealthy, safe countries should play their part in helping those displaced by war and disaster? Is it fair to lump all the problem on countries neighbouring a war zone?

 

Apparently the people (about 6k?) at Calais mainly now come from dysfunctional parts of Sudan and Somalia, and mostly don't speak French. France certainly wasn't the first safe country they arrived in. They're only there because they want to get to the UK. Maybe some of them should be deported, but where to? Not war zones, presumably? What would be the nearest safe country - Egypt? Kenya? Would those countries accept them? Are they jumping the queue or showing drive/initiative? Given the scale of the refugee problem, shouldn't we be generous to many of those 6000 people, particularly if they have family in the UK ready to support them - or are able to support themselves (it must require great resources/initiative to get from Sudan to Calais)?

 

Yes, there needs to be proper vetting to stop terrorists and criminals getting in - and measures to avoid disrupting the social equilibrium. Yes, part of the solution can be aid to allow vulnerable people to stay in their own region - or diplomacy to stop wars. But that isn't always enough and the nearest safe country can't always be expected to bear all the burden.

 

There are currently about 1.5m Syrian refugees in Lebanon, out of a population of 6m (25% of the population - proportionally equivalent to 15m refugees in the UK). A similar number are in Jordan. About 2.5m are in Turkey, a bigger country but one that has its own ethnic/religious tensions etc. A further potential disaster seems to be unfolding around Aleppo, a city of about 2m people....where should refugees from there go, now that places like Jordan, Lebanon & Turkey are struggling to take more than a trickle of emergency cases?

 

 

There's a lot of sympathisers happy to take a family into their own homes. That'll be fun. Wait till they get raped, robbed and buggered.

 

 

I've only known one refugee family: a Syrian girl in my daughter's primary school class. The grandmother was English, had married a Syrian but had come back to Leicester (widowed, I think). The girl and her mother could have stayed here, as they had dual nationality through the grandmother, but the father wasn't allowed to join them as he was pure Syrian. So, they had to leave the grandmother in Leicester and move the rest of the family to Jordan. The mother and daughter come back to visit in the summer. #Toryfamilyvalues 

 

As far as I'm aware, neither the girl nor her mother raped, robbed or buggered anyone while they were here - though as a "filthy foreigner", no doubt the father would have done so, if allowed in. 

 

 

Any chance of this thread discussing the pros and cons of the EU more widely? 

 

I'm genuinely still on the fence - but the arguments presented recently seem to be 1970s National Front arguments: "keep England for the English", "keep the filthy nig-nogs out" etc.

[Guest MattP]

As far as I'm aware, neither the girl nor her mother raped, robbed or buggered anyone while they were here - though as a "filthy foreigner", no doubt the father would have done so, if allowed in. 

 

Any chance of this thread discussing the pros and cons of the EU more widely? 

 

I'm genuinely still on the fence - but the arguments presented recently seem to be 1970s National Front arguments: "keep England for the English", "keep the filthy nig-nogs out" etc.

 

Really? Come on, no one has said anything of the sort, you are resulting to silly hyperbole here that is more Rincewind than Alf Bentley. You are far better than this as the rest of the post proves. (It's another issue but the effort by Lebanon and Jordan is absolutely super human and we should continue to plough money into these projects and help them as much as we can instead of surrendering our own borders to the unknown)

 

No one has mentioned "nig nogs" or "filthy foreigners" and it's disingenous to even head towards suggesting they have, Cameron made this an issue with his ridiculous siggestion than leaving the EU could see these sort of migrant camps move to the South of England. (Something already contradicted by the French http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12147334/France-contradicts-Cameron-over-Calais-migrant-camps.html) That agreement was made with no input from the EU whatsoever and is absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

I know you say you're "on the fence" but I'll be astonished if you advocate a leave vote when the referendum finally comes around, I think in your heart you want to stay.

 

 

Going back to the EU ref I'm delighted Priti Patel has shown more bollocks than the whole Tory cabinet put together and decided to join the leave campaign, the out side was was looking a bit too male and too pale and she'll be a vital weapon to be able to use in debates attended by the young.

[Alf Bentley]

If Cameron's best shot is that the government of which he's the leader cannot control our country's borders, then we need a change of leader.

You can see the desperation already in the remain camp. Do they really think people are this stupid?

It's the irony of all ironies now that they are trying to scaremonger with immigration to try and get us to stay in.

 

 

There's scaremongering on all sides.

 

UK border control operates in France (and vice-versa) under a bilateral agreement not dependent on the EU. If the UK left the EU but our relationship with the French/EU remained cooperative, that arrangement might continue.

 

But it might not. To some extent, the French are doing us a favour and taking flak domestically for having the Calais migrants on French soil, when they want to be in the UK and have no more right to be in France than here.

Race and immigration is a massive issue in France, with the rise of the Front National etc.

 

The French might reach a point where they cease allowing UK immigration to operate on French soil and/or turn a blind eye to migrants boarding ferries or trains to the UK. That wouldn't lead to the creation of a Calais-style refugee camp at Dover, but it might mean the UK having to handle a surge in asylum applications, housing applicants in reception centres or behind red doors in Middlesbrough, accepting them, sending them back to France or deporting them to other countries etc 

 

People have all sorts of reasons (e.g. "democracy") for wanting to leave the EU, but the vision of the Eurosceptic Right mainly seems to be of a low-tax, low-spending, low-regulation UK competing with our neighbours on that basis: a bonfire of labour regulations, environmental regulations and trade union rights, slash public spending, cut tax to encourage entrepreneurs etc. There's certainly plenty that the French could take umbrage at there, as a nation that is generally keen on extensive regulation, higher tax, public spending etc.

 

My Dad spent most of his career working for the immigration service at Dover port - letting people in or sending them back - but it was only a trickle back then. Given current migration flows, if the bilateral agreement collapsed and immigration controls ended up back in Dover, the border control people there could be dealing with a real flood.....might or might not happen.

[Guest MattP]

Were the French to actually engage in deliberate negligence in checking papers allowing travel surely they would be in some serious trouble? Countries surely can't be allowed to behave like that in this day and age? Although whatever they do it's our job to patrol our own borders, if the French allow dodgy people onto ferries it's our job to pick them out when they try to enter Britain and then make sure they can't come into the country and are sent back.

 

If we seriously cannot control our borders as an island nation then we need new people in charge of doing it, every other island nation seems to be able to manage it.