Jump to content
blandy

Should I stay or should I go now - U.K. in/out of the EU (contd.)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

i think the disparity has been incredibly high, 6 or 7 times as much here, even now minimum wage for Poland according to the ever reliable google still comes up as £385 a month, UK for 40 hours a week is around £1300, "skilled labour" in construction is more

its no brainer why people come here

I have no interest in living or working in the middle east but they offer 1.5x my current salary, if that was 3x my salary I would be sat there right now

I live in Poland.

I was taking aim at this bit.

Quote

the EU hasn't done enough to close the disparity (it is shrinking but I think minimum wage in Poland is still a quarter of what it is in the UK)

They have done a lot. And wages are only going up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, bickster said:

It's the title of a rather influential album that explains peoples attitudes to people with non-white skin tones, rather than a statement of fact

Apologies maybe my musical reference was too subtle

Don't worry Big Country fans need not listen (or Mr Mooney for that matter) :mrgreen:

R-78957-1206530921.jpeg.jpg

I got the not relevant reference ..  Risso and I had the misfortune to see them live when they supported the Stone Roses in Manchester the other year 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said:

I've yet to hear a convincing argument from the pro-EU'ers as to why an unskilled labourer from Bulgaria should have the right to to bring his family here to improve their lot, but an unskilled worker from Zimbabwe (for example) shouldn't. Is it solely they they believe the former carries greater economic advantages to the latter?

You could turn that round, too. why should we have the right to go and live and work in the EU, but not Zimbabwe? The answer of course is because the respective governments, elected by their people have chosen to co-operate in that way to further the benefit to our countries and people - and we get a lot of benefit from Bulgarian builders and so on. The EU says they have to find a job or have independent means of supporting themselves or they can be deported after 3 months, so it's not open ended, but if you or I want to go to France, Germany, Bulgaria etc to live and work, you can. That's a benefit, and you get NHS workers, plumbers, fruit pickers, Labourers and so on as well - jobs that need filling.

That agreement doesn't exist for Zimbabwe.

I get the argument treat all people the same, do a points based system or whatever, but ultimately it will still lead to immigration. There's not much wrong with the current situation, that the UK isn't perfectly able to fix, without leaving the EU. We could throw more people out, we could do an immigration type deal with India, Zimbabwe, wherever to address your point. But if people want fewer immigrants regardless, then the UK government could act to reduce it (with all the downsides it would bring, as well as any potential "benefits").

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

I'll hazard a guess that's probably not everything that they were asked for.

It quite obviously isn't. They have refused to release any communications on prorogation between the named individuals.

It's not as though Gove and Cummings don't have form on this shit. **** arseholes the both of them.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the only response available in this case is for Parliament to sit and hold the Government in contempt (as earlier in this Parliament).

Unfortunately, they're unable to do this for 5 weeks or more, unless ... Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Yellowhammer docs:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-humble-address-motion

I'll hazard a guess that's probably not everything that they were asked for.

They left out the bit which discusses how, in the event of problems with the health service, Demonic Cummings stands ready to assist.

 

IMG_20190911_201839.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Of course, the only response available in this case is for Parliament to sit and hold the Government in contempt

And what? It does nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bickster said:

It's the title of a rather influential album that explains peoples attitudes to people with non-white skin tones, rather than a statement of fact

Apologies maybe my musical reference was too subtle

Don't worry Big Country fans need not listen (or Mr Mooney for that matter) :mrgreen:

R-78957-1206530921.jpeg.jpg

I'll stick with this one, thank you. 

maxresdefault.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

And what? It does nothing.

Last time it forced the government to release the legal advice, didn't it?

Okay, I'd probably agree with you that this new government wouldn't give in like that but could it possibly not have led to more resignations (via perhaps other SO24 humble addresses for things like the legal advice on which they decided not to ask for the communications from the people involved)?

My point is not that the above would have been an end but, at the least, Parliament could still be trying to hold Government to account.

As it is prorogued, it cannot even do the basics like reply properly and formally to the Executive that has put two fingers up to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

"So, the first truck on the ferry to Calais rolls off and is now stopped for inspection. It has to be. It's treated the same as if it were coming in from Bangladesh or Guatemala with produce for the EU market. If it's treated any differently, every other member lodges a complaint with the WTO.

.... That truck waits there until the goods have been cleared. As do several of the trucks behind it.

After the fifth ferry of the day, there is no more holding space for these lorries. You're well-travelled, you've seen Calais. The French will have little interest in breaking the law just to make English lorry drivers' lives easier, so they stop allowing lorries off the boat, and shortly after lorries are no longer loaded at Dover. A tailback out of the port grows longer and longer, and the roads outside are gridlocked within a day

So, this part just screws our businesses. It's our stuff not getting to Europe. But those lorries aren't just dropping stuff and coming back empty. That would be a terrible way to run a haulage company. The lorries trapped at Dover are the same ones who aren't picking up all the stuff that we're used to getting from the continent. At last estimate, 30% of our food comes from the EU, the vast majority of that through Dover (not that the situation is likely to be different elsewhere, Dover is just the busiest and most bottle-necked)"

 

Yellowhammer, Government, August 2019.

EENIXnOW4AAzRfv?format=jpg&name=900x900

 

While I don't want to say that this was all rather predictable...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't handing over private communications between individuals be illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, colhint said:

Wouldn't handing over private communications between individuals be illegal?

Why would it be 'illegal'?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, colhint said:

Wouldn't handing over private communications between individuals be illegal?

It's been legally mandated in parliament so legal obligation would be the reason for processing the data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about this for certain. Does the ECHR overule Parliament? I don't know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, colhint said:

I thought that was covered by ECHR.  

Why? Because Gove stood up in Parliament and made that claim?

They were asking for communicatrions relating to the prorogation of Parliament, i.e. government business.

Gove and Cummings have form for using 'private communications' to discuss government business and thus trying to evade FOI legislation. IIRC, the ICO made them give up this information because tghe y told them that government business conducted through 'personal' channels was still government business and thus covered by FOI.

This seems just like a furthering of the previous Cummings scam.

The whole ECHR line is cock (and the most objectionable cock from people who have publicly called for the UK to reject the ECHR).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bickster said:

It's been legally mandated in parliament so legal obligation would be the reason for processing the data

To be fair, I don't think a humble address is a legal requirement. A humble address is a motion, isn't it? If so, that would make it lower in the foodchain than statute, i.e. law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â