The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[StefanAVFC]

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.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, lapal_fan said:

Guy from Ipswich on 5live yesterday night said "I'm not being racist, but when I walk down the high street and alls I can hear is foreign voices"  

I don't think that on its own is "racist". I live in a town in Lancashire that is mostly white people. When I moved here 30 years ago, I'd go to Manchester and most of the people there were also a similar mix (or lack of mix). Now there's all kinds of people from all over. I've "noticed" it. I've noticed that the mix of people around has changed. I'm fine with it, but I can imagine people sort of feeling that "their" country has changed and that some of them would find it all a bit disconcerting. I stress I don't think it's bad, and I don't think it's really anything much to do with the EU, but as per the post about fear of immigration being biggest where there isn't much, it's kind of human nature, or human nature for a lot of humans to be cautious about "different". Of course when we get to know the "different" we tend to find out they're not actually different at all. Hence people where there are many more folk from different backgrounds being cool with it.

But some politicians and media play on that early fear of the different and ramp it up for their own means.

[tonyh29]

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) 

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 

[blandy]

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").

[ml1dch]

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.

[snowychap]

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 September 11, 2019 by snowychap

[snowychap]

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.

[peterms]

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.

 

[StefanAVFC]

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.

[mjmooney]

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) 

I'll stick with this one, thank you. 

[snowychap]

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.

[ml1dch]

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.

 

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

[ml1dch]

The redacted bit apparently:

 

[colhint]

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

[snowychap]

7 minutes ago, colhint said:

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

Why would it be 'illegal'?

[colhint]

I thought that was covered by ECHR.  

[bickster]

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

[colhint]

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

[snowychap]

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).

[snowychap]

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.