EU Migrants being sent home

[alexxxxx]

Under EU rules, those not financially sufficient can be sent back to their home state:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263891/Homeless-migrants-living-rough-shanty-towns-told-work-sent-home.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7560589/Jobless-migrants-living-rough-face-removal.html

[MattFr]

Under EU rules, those not financially sufficient can be sent back to their home state:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263891/Homeless-migrants-living-rough-shanty-towns-told-work-sent-home.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7560589/Jobless-migrants-living-rough-face-removal.html
Good..

[Hitman]

I echo what MattFr said, GOOD.

If they send them back or not is another question... wouldn't be surprised if they were allowed to stay. We let rapists stay... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262243/Rapist-facing-deportation-allowed-stay-UK-married.html)

[alexxxxx]

I echo what MattFr said, GOOD.

If they send them back or not is another question... wouldn't be surprised if they were allowed to stay. We let rapists stay... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262243/Rapist-facing-deportation-allowed-stay-UK-married.html)

i think the words "we will remove him once he gets married." This guy has just used a loophole and if the immigration authorities do their job properly they will make sure he goes nowhere and will deport him.

This story that i have shown above just cuts into UKIP's claim that we can't control immigration in the EU. We can - if they don't work. The french do it too.

[Hitman]

i think the words "we will remove him once he gets married." This guy has just used a loophole and if the immigration authorities do their job properly they will make sure he goes nowhere and will deport him.

This story that i have shown above just cuts into UKIP's claim that we can't control immigration in the EU. We can - if they don't work. The french do it too.
Indeed but it shouldn't get to that: he committed a nasty crime and should have been deported straight away.

Er, no, not really. If spongebob and his mates from Poland want to come to the UK they can freely, there's not much control there... OK, so they get told they have to leave 'cos they're living rough. They'll just do a runner* and live rough elsewhere - great. Your story is basically showing us that we can very lightly 'control' it once we find them sleeping rough, which we then need a load of people to deport them which will cost money. It's better to prevent them from entering first, saves money and hassle.

*"Officers from Peterborough City Council, Cambridgeshire Constabulary and the UKBA have already delivered warnings to 27 migrants" - wow, warnings. That would have cost them money, I mean, these migrants probably can't speak English so they'd need to translate. And a warning is useless... they'll just run off as I said.

[alexxxxx]

Indeed but it shouldn't get to that: he committed a nasty crime and should have been deported straight away.

I agree but i think you are unfair in saying that we are 'letting him say'


Er, no, not really. If spongebob and his mates from Poland want to come to the UK they can freely, there's not much control there... OK, so they get told they have to leave 'cos they're living rough. They'll just do a runner* and live rough elsewhere - great. Your story is basically showing us that we can very lightly 'control' it once we find them sleeping rough, which we then need a load of people to deport them which will cost money. It's better to prevent them from entering first, saves money and hassle.

and quite rightly spongebob should be allowed to come and work here, like I can there. Why in your right mind would you want to stay living rough? Often these people can't afford to go home. Why should we prevent them from coming here? So they can't put money into the pot for everyone? So they can't take up jobs which aren't taken by british people?


*"Officers from Peterborough City Council, Cambridgeshire Constabulary and the UKBA have already delivered warnings to 27 migrants" - wow, warnings. That would have cost them money, I mean, these migrants probably can't speak English so they'd need to translate. And a warning is useless... they'll just run off as I said.
how do you KNOW they can't speak english? They might run off - but where to? Nowhere. They'll go home, where they will be able to stay with their families and hopefully find jobs.

[Hitman]

I agree but i think you are unfair in saying that we are 'letting him say'
But we are letting him stay - he'll just use human rights as an excuse and the politically correct judges will let him stay. Maybe we'll get rid of him though, but like I say he should have been kicked out before it got to this.


and quite rightly spongebob should be allowed to come and work here, like I can there. Why in your right mind would you want to stay living rough? Often these people can't afford to go home. Why should we prevent them from coming here? So they can't put money into the pot for everyone? So they can't take up jobs which aren't taken by british people?OK, so spongebob is poor and he comes to the UK looking for work because he has none in Poland and he is living badly there too. He gets to the UK and gets no job and he has no money to get home so he stays and sleeps rough. Maybe he'll turn to crime to survive? There was a story about migrants from eastern Europe squatting in people's back gardens and they were drug addicts.

I am not saying block the borders totally, I am saying that they should pass certain requirements: speak English*, have money to support themselves, possibly have a job to come to and have some sort of skills. At the moment I believe anybody can just come over.

*or at least be willing to learn English.


how do you KNOW they can't speak english? They might run off - but where to? Nowhere. They'll go home, where they will be able to stay with their families and hopefully find jobs. I do not know for a fact - nobody knows a lot of things - I don't know if I'm gonna live tomorrow, but I probably will. I doubt they can speak English, maybe a few could, but if they're from Poland they will most likely speak Polish and Polish only unless they had English lessons or learnt here. They'd run off to some other place where they can squat. They were fine doing it before so why won't they do it again? Going home and finding jobs... no... if they're poor then they most likely came to this country for work. A poor person does not come to a country to walk around the parks all day looking at ducks. If they travelled all the way over here to find work then there must be none where they came from...

[alexxxxx]

But we are letting him stay - he'll just use human rights as an excuse and the politically correct judges will let him stay. Maybe we'll get rid of him though, but like I say he should have been kicked out before it got to this.

I think he'll probably get kicked out.


OK, so spongebob is poor and he comes to the UK looking for work because he has none in Poland and he is living badly there too. He gets to the UK and gets no job and he has no money to get home so he stays and sleeps rough. Maybe he'll turn to crime to survive? There was a story about migrants from eastern Europe squatting in people's back gardens and they were drug addicts.

I am not saying block the borders totally, I am saying that they should pass certain requirements: speak English, have money to support themselves, possibly have a job to come to and have some sort of skills. At the moment I believe anybody can just come over.

Well it is true that unemployment rates in Poland are much higher than here and even if they are fairly well qualified - university degree and higher, they can make more money here doing menial work than doing qualified work in Poland. I remember distinctly an interviewer of a woman who was working in a sandwich shop making more money than her old job - a bank manager in Poland. You're assuming that wage levels are the same - which isn't true.


I do not know for a fact - nobody knows a lot of things - I don't know if I'm gonna live tomorrow, but I probably will. I doubt they can speak English, maybe a few could, but if they're from Poland they will most likely speak Polish and Polish only unless they had English lessons or learnt here. They'd run off to some other place where they can squat. They were fine doing it before so why won't they do it again? Going home and finding jobs... no... if they're poor then they most likely came to this country for work. A poor person does not come to a country to walk around the parks all day looking at ducks. If they travelled all the way over here to find work then there must be none where they came from...
Other countries' language learning abilities are much better than ours. I expect they will have learned english there. Their rate of university graduates is higher than the UK. Most other points have been dealt with above.

[Sharon]

guess i'm going home then OJ OJ LMAO.

That's good I suppose ;

[Jordy]

Step in the right direction I suppose, definitely needs doing but my main issue with EU immigration is how illegal immigrants can just board a boat from Africa to the canary islands (Spanish) and then be transported wherever they like around the EU seeing as they're in Spain, they then choose the UK...

[Hitman]

I think he'll probably get kicked out.
We can hope, but the Government should not let this happen again.


Well it is true that unemployment rates in Poland are much higher than here and even if they are fairly well qualified - university degree and higher, they can make more money here doing menial work than doing qualified work in Poland. I remember distinctly an interviewer of a woman who was working in a sandwich shop making more money than her old job - a bank manager in Poland. You're assuming that wage levels are the same - which isn't true.I'm not assuming that at all - I know that wages are lower in Poland and people are generally less well off there than here. But what makes them think they can get a job here though, jobs are still quite scarce - and if they are available they have a lot of people applying.


Other countries' language learning abilities are much better than ours. I expect they will have learned english there. Their rate of university graduates is higher than the UK. Most other points have been dealt with above.
This is most likely true, but I am sure many will not have learned English, although some may have. I am not against people who don't speak the language of the land coming to the country, us Brits DO go to Spain not speaking very much Spanish - this is a scenario where you can pull the Spain card out. But so long as people are willing to learn the language (by attending classes) then it's all good. You didn't reply to them just running off elsewhere - I believe that's what they'd do if given a warning: maybe they think they might find a job or something.

At the very least the Government is trying to do something - although it may be ineffective and inefficient.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This doesn't address the fact many come here and simply disappear because the European Union is in control of our borders. Infact I wouldn't take note of anything alexxx says on this forum, hes a self-confessed europhile who has stated he wants a federal superstate to be formed thus abolishing the United Kingdom.. oh and he disagrees with the idea that we (the people) should get any say on the future of our country because he knows what the answer will be.

Here is a good idea; how about we regain control of our own borders, our own justice system, our own economy and our own regulations and govern ourselves as we have for the past 1,000 years without having to pay the unelected European Union £45 million in direct payments daily to tell us what to do. To add to this, it costs business around £120 billion a year to implement EU regulations and directives of which none of them asked for, for example there is an EU definition of what a pig is - you know the animal thats pink and lives on a farm?

1,000 years of advancement in the British isles but we needed the EU to point out (using our money) what a pig is.

[Wig44.]

Or instead of wasting time & man power trying to control immigration we could leave the EU?

[alexxxxx]

This doesn't address the fact many come here and simply disappear because the European Union is in control of our borders. Infact I wouldn't take note of anything alexxx says on this forum, hes a self-confessed europhile who has stated he wants a federal superstate to be formed thus abolishing the United Kingdom.. oh and he disagrees with the idea that we (the people) should get any say on the future of our country because he knows what the answer will be.

Here is a good idea; how about we regain control of our own borders, our own justice system, our own economy and our own regulations and govern ourselves as we have for the past 1,000 years without having to pay the unelected European Union £45 million in direct payments daily to tell us what to do. To add to this, it costs business around £120 billion a year to implement EU regulations and directives of which none of them asked for, for example there is an EU definition of what a pig is - you know the animal thats pink and lives on a farm?

1,000 years of advancement in the British isles but we needed the EU to point out (using our money) what a pig is.

i wouldn't take any notice of what undertaker says as he doesn't know how the EU works, nor what it does apart from what's made up in the mail, failing this he doesn't understand simple economics nor simple economic terminology apart from 'it's supply and demand.'

[-:Undertaker:-]

i wouldn't take any notice of what undertaker says as he doesn't know how the EU works, nor what it does apart from what's made up in the mail, failing this he doesn't understand simple economics nor simple economic terminology apart from 'it's supply and demand.'

It is supply and demand because if something doesn't have a supply (coal mines in the 1980s for example) that is when you close them down because there is no demand thus no wealth comes from them, only subsidies which place a burden on the taxpayer. I'd like to ask you alex, why should the likes of you get your way concerning the European Union despite the fact the vast majority of the British and European people do not want their national states to be abolished(?). As I expected, nothing to reply to my points but just an ignorant response of 'Undertaker doesnt know economics' so that makes your opinion better than mine and the rest of the country does it?

You remind me of the former Europe Minister, Caroline Flint MP who told everyone on Question Time that they 'did not understand the EU to make a judgement on it' - in that case lets just abolish all elections and be done with it all. Immensely arrogant, what on earth is the point of fighting an election to be elected a Liberal Democrat or Labour MP only to sign over your powers to Brussels(?). The European Union has free trade agreements with Turkey, Switzerland, Mexico, South Korea, Canada, Chile and various others so why can the United Kingdom not do this also which would save us money and return national sovereign powers back to our sovereign national parliament? - is it because, as I suspect, that would mean you support the majority which would ruin the little dream of the European Superstate for you?

And to think, you call yourself a Liberal 'Democrat'.

[alexxxxx]

It is supply and demand because if something doesn't have a supply (coal mines in the 1980s for example) that is when you close them down because there is no demand thus no wealth comes from them, only subsidies which place a burden on the taxpayer. I'd like to ask you alex, why should the likes of you get your way concerning the European Union despite the fact the vast majority of the British and European people do not want their national states to be abolished(?). As I expected, nothing to reply to my points but just an ignorant response of 'Undertaker doesnt know economics' so that makes your opinion better than mine and the rest of the country does it?

Economics is not merely an issue of just Supply and Demand - if you think that you obviously cannot argue about economics because you simply just don't understand what is being said. The majority of what the european union does and legislates does have an economic reason behind it. The European Union is not destroying nation states. What points are there to address but to defend against a claim that anything I say cannot be trusted because I support the EU"SSR". What I say generally is an argument. An opinion is simply that, an opinion - whether an opinion is formed on facts or false information - therefore an opinion based on a fact, is in a debate, a better opinion.


You remind me of the former Europe Minister, Caroline Flint MP who told everyone on Question Time that they 'did not understand the EU to make a judgement on it' - in that case lets just abolish all elections and be done with it all. Immensely arrogant, what on earth is the point of fighting an election to be elected a Liberal Democrat or Labour MP only to sign over your powers to Brussels(?)

Well she's right! You need to have knowledge on how something works in order to make a judgement on it, there is no arrogance about it. I can't make a judgement on if a bridge is safe or not because of how it looks - I have no knowledge about how you could say a bridge is safe or not, that's what an engineer/surveyor does. The EU needs fair reporting on its activities in the mainstream press, but the majority of what it does not interest people because it doesn't appear to affect people in their every day lives, so just the seemingly 'loony' stories get covered - it's easy to sell absurdity. Hardcore bloggers and searching through news aggregators provide a lot of news.


The European Union has free trade agreements with Turkey, Switzerland, Mexico, South Korea, Canada, Chile and various others so why can the United Kingdom not do this also which would save us money and return national sovereign powers back to our sovereign national parliament? - is it because, as I suspect, that would mean you support the majority which would ruin the little dream of the European Superstate for you?

And to think, you call yourself a Liberal 'Democrat'.
There is no such thing as 'signing over power to brussels.' As a bloc, we are still all in control of the EU - if you knew how it works you'd know yourself. Turkey and Switzerland are both 'fax democracies' where law and legislation is literally faxed to them to enact or lose their EFTA status - is that what you want for the UK too? The links with other nations are not 100% Free Trade. The EU is far more than just an economic union, you know that, which benefits us.

I don't link myself with a political party as such because I don't want to subscribe to a set of ideas - i'll vote for the party which has the closest views to my own. I'll probably vote for the Liberal Democrats because I want my economy to run by a proper economist, who speaks sense, an active UK presence within the EU and various other policies that I think would be good for the economy.

[SirStan]

They won't be deported. It just won't happen.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Economics is not merely an issue of just Supply and Demand - if you think that you obviously cannot argue about economics because you simply just don't understand what is being said. The majority of what the european union does and legislates does have an economic reason behind it. The European Union is not destroying nation states. What points are there to address but to defend against a claim that anything I say cannot be trusted because I support the EU"SSR". What I say generally is an argument. An opinion is simply that, an opinion - whether an opinion is formed on facts or false information - therefore an opinion based on a fact, is in a debate, a better opinion.The European Union is destroying nation states and its out in the open. One currency, one flag, one President and one government is destroying the nation state. Barroso, Herman Van Rompuy and various others have all expressed their desire to abolish the nation state and create a federal European superstate (you yourself want this). I simply do not understand your idea of economics and the idea of the European Unions economics that by putting regulation after regulation on business/nation state somehow helps that busines/nation state because it does not. These regulations cost business heavily (estimated at over £100 billion a year) and thats not good for growth. For example, I now believe its compulsory for slaughter houses to have someone present to check on 'animal welfare' thanks to EU regulations.


Well she's right! You need to have knowledge on how something works in order to make a judgement on it, there is no arrogance about it. I can't make a judgement on if a bridge is safe or not because of how it looks - I have no knowledge about how you could say a bridge is safe or not, that's what an engineer/surveyor does. The EU needs fair reporting on its activities in the mainstream press, but the majority of what it does not interest people because it doesn't appear to affect people in their every day lives, so just the seemingly 'loony' stories get covered - it's easy to sell absurdity. Hardcore bloggers and searching through news aggregators provide a lot of news.That is arrogant, so in that logic then we should scrap elections because the majority of people do not read party manifestos(?) - Utter tripe. The European Union needs fair reporting you say, well it does get fair reporting (in your eyes, good reporting) from papers who support it such as the Guardian but alex I must ask you, why do you think papers like the Guardian fail to sell in vast numbers like those of the Telegraph, Express and Mail?

What have you got against people making a decision in a democracy?


There is no such thing as 'signing over power to brussels.' As a bloc, we are still all in control of the EU - if you knew how it works you'd know yourself. Turkey and Switzerland are both 'fax democracies' where law and legislation is literally faxed to them to enact or lose their EFTA status - is that what you want for the UK too? The links with other nations are not 100% Free Trade. The EU is far more than just an economic union, you know that, which benefits us.Our courts have lost supremacy to European courts and our laws are now undercut by laws from Brussels, many of which we cannot overturn as they are implemented directly by the ECJ and the Commission so even the EU Parliament doesnt get a say on it, so i'm afraid we have signed away powers to Brussels no matter how you try and word it. As for Switzerland well i'm afraid thats silly talk, the Swiss people have the greatest form of democracy in the world and have sweeping powers to overturn these powers in referendum (hence why they rejected your superstate). Do you know what I want alex and what the vast majority of people want? - we can trade with the European Union, be friends with it but not be dictated by it.

The European Union is a economic, social and polictical union that has been created without our consent. Yugoslavia and the USSR were also created without consent and collapsed in time because its unworkable and was not democractically built. I live in the United Kingdom and I am British and I want my country to create its own laws and not unelected eurocrats on the other side of the channel, most of which myself and my people have nothing in common with.


I don't link myself with a political party as such because I don't want to subscribe to a set of ideas - i'll vote for the party which has the closest views to my own. I'll probably vote for the Liberal Democrats because I want my economy to run by a proper economist, who speaks sense, an active UK presence within the EU and various other policies that I think would be good for the economy.How can you claim to be a Liberal 'Democrat' when you have some sort of strange issue with the idea of holding a referendum on Britains membership of the European Union? - just come out and admit it, that you dont want to hold a referendum because it wouldnt give you and the europhiles the result you want.

[alexxxxx]

The European Union is destroying nation states and its out in the open. One currency, one flag, one President and one government is destroying the nation state.

The 'EU' Flag was in existence before the EU even existed. There is no EU president. There is the President of The European Council, The President of The European Council and the President of the Parliament. Which is this 'one' president?



Barroso, Herman Van Rompuy and various others have all expressed their desire to abolish the nation state and create a federal European superstate (you yourself want this). I simply do not understand your idea of economics and the idea of the European Unions economics that by putting regulation after regulation on business/nation state somehow helps that busines/nation state because it does not. These regulations cost business heavily (estimated at over £100 billion a year) and thats not good for growth. For example, I now believe its compulsory for slaughter houses to have someone present to check on 'animal welfare' thanks to EU regulations.

For the EU to have dedicated leadership, people with strong interest in it is beneficial. They may wish to 'abolish' the nation state, but it cannot and will not happen. Regulation NEEDS to happen. The lack of it caused the financial crisis we are in now. That's one thing I do agree with the lib dems, break up the banks. Smaller institutions GENERALLY are more efficient than larger ones, that is an economic principal. If you can find me a decent link with real substantiated evidence that it costs £100bn, then that is a decent argument to make. And the same to your last comment.


That is arrogant, so in that logic then we should scrap elections because the majority of people do not read party manifestos(?) - Utter tripe. The European Union needs fair reporting you say, well it does get fair reporting (in your eyes, good reporting) from papers who support it such as the Guardian but alex I must ask you, why do you think papers like the Guardian fail to sell in vast numbers like those of the Telegraph, Express and Mail?

The Guardian barely reports on the EU. You'd know it if you read it. The Guardian might have less readership in paper format, but has a wider market share on the internet, being second to the BBC in online news. It claims its the second most read english newspaper on the internet after the New York Times. I skim through lots of websites/blogs from around the world with different perspectives and different alliances.



What have you got against people making a decision in a democracy?

Our courts have lost supremacy to European courts and our laws are now undercut by laws from Brussels, many of which we cannot overturn as they are implemented directly by the ECJ and the Commission so even the EU Parliament doesnt get a say on it, so i'm afraid we have signed away powers to Brussels no matter how you try and word it. As for Switzerland well i'm afraid thats silly talk, the Swiss people have the greatest form of democracy in the world and have sweeping powers to overturn these powers in referendum (hence why they rejected your superstate). Do you know what I want alex and what the vast majority of people want? - we can trade with the European Union, be friends with it but not be dictated by it.

How on earth do you expect the EU to do its job in regulation and protecting citizen's rights without a means of punishment? What i'm saying about the EEA and the EFTA is TRUE. They have no way of changing regualtions. It's a one-way deal, albeit, less money is paid into the EU but to say that joining the EEA is more democratic is just quite simply untrue. The Swiss people themselves do not have the power to not abide by the laws of the EFTA nor the Council of Europe.


The European Union is a economic, social and polictical union that has been created without our consent. Yugoslavia and the USSR were also created without consent and collapsed in time because its unworkable and was not democractically built. I live in the United Kingdom and I am British and I want my country to create its own laws and not unelected eurocrats on the other side of the channel, most of which myself and my people have nothing in common with.

I don't think any sane EU supporter thinks that there isn't any room for improvement, i, for example would like to see directly elected commissioners - or an elected MP being sent as a commissioner - as this would make the EU more democratic.


How can you claim to be a Liberal 'Democrat' when you have some sort of strange issue with the idea of holding a referendum on Britains membership of the European Union? - just come out and admit it, that you dont want to hold a referendum because it wouldnt give you and the europhiles the result you want.
like i said i'm not a liberal democrat. i'm not a member of their party nor do i wish to join it :rolleyes: A referendum isn't necessary - if people want to get out of the EU, sufficient pressure on the government would be good. - whether this be by electing a UKIP/BNP government or large pressure groups. I suggest you read some proper EU blogs and learn properly what you are so against, because you don't seem particularly clued-up on it. Or even browse www.europa.eu for a bit.


EDIT:

also, i don't mind listening to europsceptic arguments if there are some good points in them. i'll give you a good one to get started with:

UK regulation reaps £1.20 of benefits for every £1 spent, whilist european regulation reaps only £1.05 for every £1 spent.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The 'EU' Flag was in existence before the EU even existed. There is no EU president. There is the President of The European Council, The President of The European Council and the President of the Parliament. Which is this 'one' president?

The 'one President' is the guy called Herman Van Rompuy who came to be our President by the European Union and national governments forcing through the EU Consitution Lisbon Treaty without the consent of the people. I should add that the French, Dutch and Irish were asked whether they wanted the President, offical flag and emblem and so on but said no alex. The word no means exactly that, no. This guy is unelected, not wanted and most people dont even know his name.

Now I know for a europhile like yourself that is very hard to understand the concept that people do not want something thats EU-related, but for once actually understand that you are working, foolishly and in an almost dictorial way which goes against the wishes of the people.


For the EU to have dedicated leadership, people with strong interest in it is beneficial. They may wish to 'abolish' the nation state, but it cannot and will not happen. Regulation NEEDS to happen. The lack of it caused the financial crisis we are in now. That's one thing I do agree with the lib dems, break up the banks. Smaller institutions GENERALLY are more efficient than larger ones, that is an economic principal. If you can find me a decent link with real substantiated evidence that it costs £100bn, then that is a decent argument to make. And the same to your last comment.

It cannot and will not happen?

You mean like our farming, fishing, agricultural, social and various other policies (now starting to edge towards economic) are now controlled by the European Union despite the fact that Ted Heath said when we had the referendum on joining the European Economic Community that it was not a 'United States of Europe' project and then it later came out that he knew at the time that the intention was to build a European Superstate and it still is. Herman Van Rompuy has called for world government and Jose Barroso has called the European Union an Empire - need I say more?

Just because something isnt offically called a government doesnt mean it is not a government (and I think thats a phrase similar to one that came from the former head of the EU Commission).


The Guardian barely reports on the EU. You'd know it if you read it. The Guardian might have less readership in paper format, but has a wider market share on the internet, being second to the BBC in online news. It claims its the second most read english newspaper on the internet after the New York Times. I skim through lots of websites/blogs from around the world with different perspectives and different alliances.

But do you not grasp the fact that if nobody is reporting anything on the EU that its actually not wanted and not needed? - I dont understand this mentality you have, people do not want it yet people such as yourself seem to think the word no means yes. It means no, no to a single currency, no to a President on more than Obama and no to a unelected Commission full of convicted criminals/communists. We live in a democracy and people can read whatever they wish, and we are reading time after time how the EU wastes money and aims to become a European Superstate.

You have got fair reporting, and you have a fair response to which is *still* no.


How on earth do you expect the EU to do its job in regulation and protecting citizen's rights without a means of punishment? What i'm saying about the EEA and the EFTA is TRUE. They have no way of changing regualtions. It's a one-way deal, albeit, less money is paid into the EU but to say that joining the EEA is more democratic is just quite simply untrue. The Swiss people themselves do not have the power to not abide by the laws of the EFTA nor the Council of Europe.

I do not expect the EU to 'do its job in regulation and protecting citizens rights' because my country never asked for it and we still do not want it even after all these regulations it has imposed to 'protect our rights'. As for the trade agreements, well i'm sorry but their national laws come ontop of the laws of the EEA and EFTA unlike the British system and systems across Europe where national parliaments and Consitutions are being cyncially violated by European law.

How is the United Kingdom a sovereign state and the European Union not a sovereign state when EU law and courts take place over British law and courts - the fact is, it isnt. Its a mere puppet state. The whole idea of a state is so you govern yourself yet the United Kingdom no longer does that therefore it is not a sovereign state. You say regulation needs to happen, why not have it done here in Britain at a fraction of the cost and let the people decide in their own parliament whether or not they want more or less regulation?


I don't think any sane EU supporter thinks that there isn't any room for improvement, i, for example would like to see directly elected commissioners - or an elected MP being sent as a commissioner - as this would make the EU more democratic.

So what is your big problem with holding a referendum on membership?

In other words, you want democracy as long as it suits you. Well I have news for you, that is not democracy.


like i said i'm not a liberal democrat. i'm not a member of their party nor do i wish to join it :rolleyes: A referendum isn't necessary - if people want to get out of the EU, sufficient pressure on the government would be good. - whether this be by electing a UKIP/BNP government or large pressure groups. I suggest you read some proper EU blogs and learn properly what you are so against, because you don't seem particularly clued-up on it. Or even browse www.europa.eu (http://www.europa.eu/) for a bit.

The vast majority of people seem to care alex even if you think its [hold a referendum] 'not necessary' so why not allow them to choose?


EDIT:

also, i don't mind listening to europsceptic arguments if there are some good points in them. i'll give you a good one to get started with:

UK regulation reaps £1.20 of benefits for every £1 spent, whilist european regulation reaps only £1.05 for every £1 spent.

..and you can make an even bigger saving ontop of that by leaving the EU and scrapping all EU regulation.

[alexxxxx]

The 'one President' is the guy called Herman Van Rompuy who came to be our President by the European Union and national governments forcing through the EU Consitution Lisbon Treaty without the consent of the people. I should add that the French, Dutch and Irish were asked whether they wanted the President, offical flag and emblem and so on but said no alex. The word no means exactly that, no. This guy is unelected, not wanted and most people dont even know his name.

Now I know for a europhile like yourself that is very hard to understand the concept that people do not want something thats EU-related, but for once actually understand that you are working, foolishly and in an almost dictorial way which goes against the wishes of the people.

So you mean the president of the european council! I'm glad you cleared that up. National Governments should more closely scrutinise EU legislation instead of regarding the EU as foreign news.



It cannot and will not happen?

You mean like our farming, fishing, agricultural, social and various other policies (now starting to edge towards economic)

If you have a common market, you have to have common regulation or it simply isn't a common market.


are now controlled by the European Union despite the fact that Ted Heath said when we had the referendum on joining the European Economic Community that it was not a 'United States of Europe' project and then it later came out that he knew at the time that the intention was to build a European Superstate and it still is. Herman Van Rompuy has called for world government and Jose Barroso has called the European Union an Empire - need I say more?

Just because something isnt offically called a government doesnt mean it is not a government (and I think thats a phrase similar to one that came from the former head of the EU Commission).

The EU is essentially controlled via the european council and the european council don't want too much power taken away from their national governments. They need ideological people, but require people they can control easily.


But do you not grasp the fact that if nobody is reporting anything on the EU that its actually not wanted and not needed? - I dont understand this mentality you have, people do not want it yet people such as yourself seem to think the word no means yes. It means no, no to a single currency, no to a President on more than Obama and no to a unelected Commission full of convicted criminals/communists. We live in a democracy and people can read whatever they wish, and we are reading time after time how the EU wastes money and aims to become a European Superstate.

You have got fair reporting, and you have a fair response to which is *still* no.
Well it's not the fact that no-one wants it. Infact I'd argue that the lack of quality journalism in the main stream media leads to the ignorance and the fear about the EU.

[QUOTE]
I do not expect the EU to 'do its job in regulation and protecting citizens rights' because my country never asked for it and we still do not want it even after all these regulations it has imposed to 'protect our rights'. As for the trade agreements, well i'm sorry but their national laws come ontop of the laws of the EEA and EFTA unlike the British system and systems across Europe where national parliaments and Consitutions are being cyncially violated by European law.

See above about regulation. I expect you want agreements like the League Of Nations where as there are no real methods of punishments for countries that break rules, they'll continue to do so. If we were to join the EFTA you'd have to abide by the court. You are completely wrong, British law cannot come first if you want to join organisations like this. If you don't join organisations like this you become a marginalised nation.



How is the United Kingdom a sovereign state and the European Union not a sovereign state when EU law and courts take place over British law and courts - the fact is, it isnt. Its a mere puppet state. The whole idea of a state is so you govern yourself yet the United Kingdom no longer does that therefore it is not a sovereign state. You say regulation needs to happen, why not have it done here in Britain at a fraction of the cost and let the people decide in their own parliament whether or not they want more or less regulation?

If the UK is a puppet state, how are we still allowed to have a general election right now. Frankly what you've wrote is the largest joke of all as due to the Lisbon Treaty an official way of leaving the EU has been written up. As long as we still have the right to leave the EU we are a completely 100% sovereign state.



So what is your big problem with holding a referendum on membership?

In other words, you want democracy as long as it suits you. Well I have news for you, that is not democracy.



The vast majority of people seem to care alex even if you think its [hold a referendum] 'not necessary' so why not allow them to choose?

they are getting the choice now - vote UKIP! UKIP have had a lot of television exposure and they are always out an about. People know who they are and who they stand for. We vote in a government to make laws - that's what it's there for. Do you want to undermine our parliament? If 50%+ of the british people want to leave the EU they can, by voting in UKIP. Not hard to see my point of view is it? How come is it that UKIP are polling very little in the general election?



..and you can make an even bigger saving ontop of that by leaving the EU and scrapping all EU regulation.
Well ultimately a lot of this regulation will be just taken back into UK control and will just be paid by the taxpayer here instead.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So you mean the president of the european council! I'm glad you cleared that up. National Governments should more closely scrutinise EU legislation instead of regarding the EU as foreign news.Why can the people not scrutinise the European Union in a fair and free referendum?


If you have a common market, you have to have common regulation or it simply isn't a common market.The free market shouldnt be in blocs, having a trade bloc defies the idea of the common market and its pretty simple with the views of Nigel Farage and Ron Paul played into it, the free market is that; its free without much regulation at all. One nation trades with another and so forth - thats the free market. A trade bloc which seeks to exclude others because they are not in that organisation is not a free market.


The EU is essentially controlled via the european council and the european council don't want too much power taken away from their national governments. They need ideological people, but require people they can control easily.See now this is where we trip alex, because whether you like it or not (which you do because you've given your support for a federal Europe) the aim is to create a European Superstate. If you have something that has its own currency, its own regulations (which overtakes priority of those on a national scale) and if you have something which aims for political, social and economic union then you are speaking of nothing more than a state. The European Union in idealogical terms is socialist with Jose Barroso being a former Maoist and many former Soviets hold positions withion the European Union which is ironic, as they were unelected in the Soviet Union and are now unelected in the European Union.


Well it's not the fact that no-one wants it. Infact I'd argue that the lack of quality journalism in the main stream media leads to the ignorance and the fear about the EU.As usual you attempt to play it as the usual 'evil right wing media brainwashing everybody' - back in 1997 I could of said exactly the same about Labour and called for elections to be scrapped because everyone was being influenced by the eurphoria and press. It does not wash. How on earth can you accuse people of being ignorant over the European Union when the EU itself refuses to give anybody a say on whether or not they even wish for it to exist, and when it has to it makes them vote again - thats damn right arrogant.


See above about regulation. I expect you want agreements like the League Of Nations where as there are no real methods of punishments for countries that break rules, they'll continue to do so. If we were to join the EFTA you'd have to abide by the court. You are completely wrong, British law cannot come first if you want to join organisations like this. If you don't join organisations like this you become a marginalised nation.I do not agree with the idea that one nation state should be bullied into what it does not want by other nations and as a libertarian yourself (apparently) you should be on the same line as myself. Let us take Iran for example, why can Iran be denied nuclear weapons when Israel has them but is not signed upto any international treaties and still denies they exist despite the fact they clearly do. It fuels extremism and creates wars, it doesnt prevent them.

As for British law, yes it can come first because we live in Britain and we are a sovereign state. If the EFTA is not an option then a seperate treaty should be organised, if not then we go back to what the rest of the world does which is trade with obstacles but try to minimise them as much as possible by putting hope into the idea that the European Union might open up in terms of trade, rather than isolate itself in a trade bloc while the rest of the world is posed to outpace Europe.


If the UK is a puppet state, how are we still allowed to have a general election right now. Frankly what you've wrote is the largest joke of all as due to the Lisbon Treaty an official way of leaving the EU has been written up. As long as we still have the right to leave the EU we are a completely 100% sovereign state.The Soviet Union had elections but we clearly know what a sham they were, the same goes for this. The states of the USSR also technically had the right to leave the Soviet Union and eventually did, however if you have studied history you will know how hard it is to do that and the same is occuring now. We are being tangled up into this web which is political, social and economic which is making it harder and harder to leave. They can add as many clauses as they wish to do so, all an illusion because the pace of European regulation and legislation is outpacing any withdrawl clause rapidly and almost, well it does, defies the idea that you can just leave whenever you wish.


they are getting the choice now - vote UKIP! UKIP have had a lot of television exposure and they are always out an about. People know who they are and who they stand for. We vote in a government to make laws - that's what it's there for. Do you want to undermine our parliament? If 50%+ of the british people want to leave the EU they can, by voting in UKIP. Not hard to see my point of view is it? How come is it that UKIP are polling very little in the general election?You know as well as I do and UKIP itself, the FPTP system will not allow that ever to happen and I can gurantee you that as soon as that system is thrown off and a real proportional representation system is put into place the European Union will be over - either by the hands of UKIP itself or the Conservative Party which would be forced back into conservative and libertarian ideals with the threat of UKIP and other parties that would arise from a fair and free election. I shall take my mum and dad as an example as well as the rest of my family a few years back, we disagree with most of the policies of the Liberal Democrats yet we voted for them and why? - because under FPTP the only choice/real effect we could make was to vote for the Liberal Democrats to keep Labour out who destroyed this city and we did not want that again.

We also have something like 40% of people who do not bother voting, FPTP leaves them isolated and quite rightly because their vote is a waste of time. Lets not pretend, UKIP is a mainly conservative-natured party and i'm sure you would agree also that its ideals and idealogy of conservatism and libertarianism appeal much more to the vast majority of conservatives than the policies of the Conservative Party in 2010. Infact you even see it on this forum, conservatives on here have said they would vote for UKIP but they vote Conservative because they know that under this system UKIP haven't a cats chance in hell of forming a government.

To see how corrupt and unfair the system is, just look at the Liberal Democrats now;- ahead in the polls yet predicted to get the least seats. Labour;- behind in the polls yet predicted to retain the most seats. The issue of parliament, I would like to undermine it yes because direct democracy is a far better solution. Again, as Nigel Farage pointed out, that parliament spent 18 hours debating the invasion of Iraq but spent over 600 hours debating the fox hunt ban.

Now i'm sorry, what sort of tinpot democracy is that?


Well ultimately a lot of this regulation will be just taken back into UK control and will just be paid by the taxpayer here instead.Theres not need to include all this regulation as it strangles business, Europe has always been more inclined to use more regulation hence why their financial sectors lagged behind those of ours and the City of London. The taxpayer already pays for it Alex, as well as paying for things such as new motorways across Europe while our own roads fall into disrepair because 'we havent got enough money' - and yourself and the eurocrats wonder why people are against the European Union. :rolleyes:

[alexxxxx]

Why can the people not scrutinise the European Union in a fair and free referendum?

Do you even know what scrutinise means?
scrutiny - Thorough inspection of a situation or a case



The free market shouldnt be in blocs, having a trade bloc defies the idea of the common market and its pretty simple with the views of Nigel Farage and Ron Paul played into it, the free market is that; its free without much regulation at all. One nation trades with another and so forth - thats the free market. A trade bloc which seeks to exclude others because they are not in that organisation is not a free market.

That would be the ideal, but unfortunately you are going to find it very hard to get 100% free trade reciprocal trade agreements with the rest of the world. And then you are going to have to have some sort of body with power to make sure that free trade continues - which leads to blocs.


See now this is where we trip alex, because whether you like it or not (which you do because you've given your support for a federal Europe) the aim is to create a European Superstate. If you have something that has its own currency, its own regulations (which overtakes priority of those on a national scale) and if you have something which aims for political, social and economic union then you are speaking of nothing more than a state. The European Union in idealogical terms is socialist with Jose Barroso being a former Maoist and many former Soviets hold positions withion the European Union which is ironic, as they were unelected in the Soviet Union and are now unelected in the European Union.

And yes I agree with it having its own regulations and there are significant benefits to having one currency (and yes they should take prevalence over national laws or what would be the point in them?). I'm not a particular fan of Borroso, but it is worth noting that his last party affiliation was a centre-right party and he was a maoist in student years. What happens today is more important than what happened in the past.


As usual you attempt to play it as the usual 'evil right wing media brainwashing everybody' - back in 1997 I could of said exactly the same about Labour and called for elections to be scrapped because everyone was being influenced by the eurphoria and press. It does not wash. How on earth can you accuse people of being ignorant over the European Union when the EU itself refuses to give anybody a say on whether or not they even wish for it to exist, and when it has to it makes them vote again - thats damn right arrogant.

I still stand by what I say.



I do not agree with the idea that one nation state should be bullied into what it does not want by other nations and as a libertarian yourself (apparently) you should be on the same line as myself. Let us take Iran for example, why can Iran be denied nuclear weapons when Israel has them but is not signed upto any international treaties and still denies they exist despite the fact they clearly do. It fuels extremism and creates wars, it doesnt prevent them.

Unfortunately to have a common market that works you need to have common rules, if there wasn't you'd have each nation protecting their own inefficient industries and a loss in economic welfare. How hard is this to understand? Where has Iran come from?



As for British law, yes it can come first because we live in Britain and we are a sovereign state. If the EFTA is not an option then a seperate treaty should be organised, if not then we go back to what the rest of the world does which is trade with obstacles but try to minimise them as much as possible by putting hope into the idea that the European Union might open up in terms of trade, rather than isolate itself in a trade bloc while the rest of the world is posed to outpace Europe.

You won't get another treaty. The EU is open to trade from all over the world, not free trade, but it is open - there are tariffs on many imports. The USA has similar tariffs and jump at the chance to look after themselves. Eventually there will be free trade over the world, but you have to accept that it takes time to do so.


The Soviet Union had elections but we clearly know what a sham they were, the same goes for this. The states of the USSR also technically had the right to leave the Soviet Union and eventually did, however if you have studied history you will know how hard it is to do that and the same is occuring now. We are being tangled up into this web which is political, social and economic which is making it harder and harder to leave. They can add as many clauses as they wish to do so, all an illusion because the pace of European regulation and legislation is outpacing any withdrawl clause rapidly and almost, well it does, defies the idea that you can just leave whenever you wish.

You are not honestly comparing the UK elections to soviet elections. Then why does the Lisbon treaty now include an exit clause and outline how a state can leave the union?



You know as well as I do and UKIP itself, the FPTP system will not allow that ever to happen and I can gurantee you that as soon as that system is thrown off and a real proportional representation system is put into place the European Union will be over - either by the hands of UKIP itself or the Conservative Party which would be forced back into conservative and libertarian ideals with the threat of UKIP and other parties that would arise from a fair and free election. I shall take my mum and dad as an example as well as the rest of my family a few years back, we disagree with most of the policies of the Liberal Democrats yet we voted for them and why? - because under FPTP the only choice/real effect we could make was to vote for the Liberal Democrats to keep Labour out who destroyed this city and we did not want that again.

We also have something like 40% of people who do not bother voting, FPTP leaves them isolated and quite rightly because their vote is a waste of time. Lets not pretend, UKIP is a mainly conservative-natured party and i'm sure you would agree also that its ideals and idealogy of conservatism and libertarianism appeal much more to the vast majority of conservatives than the policies of the Conservative Party in 2010. Infact you even see it on this forum, conservatives on here have said they would vote for UKIP but they vote Conservative because they know that under this system UKIP haven't a cats chance in hell of forming a government.

I completely disagree - you are blaming the system when really it is the inadequacies and the unpopularity of UKIP and its policies that means that it doesn't get elected. If UKIP was a single-issue party on leaving the european union and then promised to have a general election afterwards - it would be much more likely to get elected. Its right-wing agenda and undertones puts people who are eurosceptic and left-wing off voting for them. I'll give you my example - I live where Ken Clarke is in office - a 14000-strong majority - my vote essentially won't count. PR doesn't ever mean you get strong governments. They fall apart when coalitions fall apart. Even though in principle i support reform, care has to be taken into not setting up a system where forming any sort of government becomes impossible.



To see how corrupt and unfair the system is, just look at the Liberal Democrats now;- ahead in the polls yet predicted to get the least seats. Labour;- behind in the polls yet predicted to retain the most seats. The issue of parliament, I would like to undermine it yes because direct democracy is a far better solution. Again, as Nigel Farage pointed out, that parliament spent 18 hours debating the invasion of Iraq but spent over 600 hours debating the fox hunt ban.

Now i'm sorry, what sort of tinpot democracy is that?

There is argument to what you're saying and I agree with the majority of what you say in this respect. But predictions on seats are very very hard to make due to you have to make a wide variety of assumptions. When you start assuming a uniform swing, any prediction is likely to be wrong.



Theres not need to include all this regulation as it strangles business, Europe has always been more inclined to use more regulation hence why their financial sectors lagged behind those of ours and the City of London. The taxpayer already pays for it Alex, as well as paying for things such as new motorways across Europe while our own roads fall into disrepair because 'we havent got enough money' - and yourself and the eurocrats wonder why people are against the European Union. :rolleyes:
i wouldn't use this as a good example. frankfurt is regarded as a major financial sector, that's why the ECB is based their. It was highly regarded that London would have been the headquarters of the ECB if we had joined the EMU. I'm perfectly happy that our money goes towards building better roads - it will improve efficiency of all businesses across europe.

[Adamm]

Good, get 'em all gone.

Flee to Bosnia instead, no one cares about that tiny country.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you even know what scrutinise means?
scrutiny - Thorough inspection of a situation or a case

Indeed I so and congratulations to you for finding the definition, so I will ask again; why can the British people not have a debate to scrutinise the European Union and then have a referendum on the issue?


That would be the ideal, but unfortunately you are going to find it very hard to get 100% free trade reciprocal trade agreements with the rest of the world. And then you are going to have to have some sort of body with power to make sure that free trade continues - which leads to blocs.

The body which regulates trade would be the government or a sovereign organisation, not one which tells us how to run our NHS, our immigration system, our economy, what weights and measurements to use, what a pig (animal) is, what flag we should have and the list goes on and on and on. Free trade is possible without blocs, and infact blocs are the opposite to free trade because rather than looking out to the rest of the world, you isolate yourself within that bloc - Europe is in decline and will continue to decline both economically and demographically, by looking inwards it is storing up enormous problems for itself in the future both politically, socially and economically.


And yes I agree with it having its own regulations and there are significant benefits to having one currency (and yes they should take prevalence over national laws or what would be the point in them?). I'm not a particular fan of Borroso, but it is worth noting that his last party affiliation was a centre-right party and he was a maoist in student years. What happens today is more important than what happened in the past.

Now this is where you cannot answer it each and every time we touch on it;

1) EU regulation, you agree with them.
- Perhaps some regulations to do with trade are needed, however how are regulations controlling weights and measurements, the definition of a pig, working time directives and so on even directly related to the economy. If you are arguing for more regulation across the board (in other words removing governmental powers from elected bodies and giving them to foreign unelected bodies) then that needs consent because you are handing over sovereign powers without anybody agreeing to it - it is totally and utterly wrong.

2) The single currency, has its benefits you say.
- The single currency does not have its benefits because you lose all monetary control over your economy and your currency, in other words you cannot even describe yourself as 'you' in that case because once you do that there is no 'you' as in a nation state - there is only one state then, a European Superstate. Infact you are repeating the utter rubbish that Peter Mandelson and Nick Clegg continue to spout;- I mean can you not see the disaster that has been the euro in which a country/countries totally differing economies have the same currency? (Greece compared to Germany, France compared to Czech Republic and so forth).


I still stand by what I say.

In other words, totally ignoring public opinion and dismissing it.


Unfortunately to have a common market that works you need to have common rules, if there wasn't you'd have each nation protecting their own inefficient industries and a loss in economic welfare. How hard is this to understand? Where has Iran come from?

That is a common sign of Europe actually and not the United Kingdom from after the 1980s in which we finished our loss-making industry off and killed it, whereas Europe favours keeping dead industry alive as it is far more to the left than the United Kingdom is. If you want common rules for trade then fair do's (although this could be done with a treaty anyway) but once you start taking away my sterling, social, economic and political policy then you have overstepped the mark.


You won't get another treaty. The EU is open to trade from all over the world, not free trade, but it is open - there are tariffs on many imports. The USA has similar tariffs and jump at the chance to look after themselves. Eventually there will be free trade over the world, but you have to accept that it takes time to do so.

I have said there will be no more treaties concerning the European Union - aslong as we remain a part of it. Hang on a second anyway, not long ago you were saying the European Union was free trade and now you are saying the total opposite - you say free trade will take a while to arrive;- if thats the case, then what is the point in the European Union?


You are not honestly comparing the UK elections to soviet elections. Then why does the Lisbon treaty now include an exit clause and outline how a state can leave the union?

I am, no matter what the people voted in their voting system;- they were still governed from Moscow and the same goes for us with Brussels which in your eyes (the very small minority of Euro-federalists) is a good thing. The Lisbon Treaty may include an exit clause, but at the same time hands over enormous powers (self-amending ones) to the European Union meaning it is nothing but a farce. It is wrapping us up in a web [Eurpean dominence] which is spinning ten times faster than you can cut it back with the tiny scissors [exit clause] they have given you.


I completely disagree - you are blaming the system when really it is the inadequacies and the unpopularity of UKIP and its policies that means that it doesn't get elected. If UKIP was a single-issue party on leaving the european union and then promised to have a general election afterwards - it would be much more likely to get elected. Its right-wing agenda and undertones puts people who are eurosceptic and left-wing off voting for them. I'll give you my example - I live where Ken Clarke is in office - a 14000-strong majority - my vote essentially won't count. PR doesn't ever mean you get strong governments. They fall apart when coalitions fall apart. Even though in principle i support reform, care has to be taken into not setting up a system where forming any sort of government becomes impossible.

UKIP is not unpopular though, I shall remind you it came second in the European 2009 Elections. Even if UKIP recieved 50% of the vote in a General Election, it probably would still not form a majority because of the way the FPTP voting system is worked out - hence why many ditch UKIP and vote for other parties, mostly being the Conservatives. Tink of it like this; if you removed the UKIP sticker and the Conservative Party sticker from their policies and presented them to voters, who would they back? - without a question they would back UKIP and we can see it on this forum especiallu where UKIP voters tend to back the Conservatives because they know if they vote UKIP, it'll split the Conservative vote.

As for the single issue;- that is utter rubbish. The European Union is still not a strong enough issue in the minds of the voters to warrant voting for a single issue party and in terms of left and right, it would hardly gain more support from the left because the European Union does everything the left mostly agrees with;- more regulation and the creation of the European Superstate. As a Telegraph article recently stated;- a hung parliament with a PR outcome is the best chance UKIP will ever get. If this does occur and PR does arrive to this country, UKIP would very well reach something around the 20% mark in a future General Election which would force a referendum on the European Union.


There is argument to what you're saying and I agree with the majority of what you say in this respect. But predictions on seats are very very hard to make due to you have to make a wide variety of assumptions. When you start assuming a uniform swing, any prediction is likely to be wrong.

However we know that even with calculated swings, the system with the polls at the moment is likely to return a Labour majority even if it comes 3rd in the polls. Every single vote should count, if you vote in a Tory stronghold for the Liberal Democrats then it should count and the same goes for all votes including those for the smaller parties such as UKIP.


i wouldn't use this as a good example. frankfurt is regarded as a major financial sector, that's why the ECB is based their. It was highly regarded that London would have been the headquarters of the ECB if we had joined the EMU. I'm perfectly happy that our money goes towards building better roads - it will improve efficiency of all businesses across europe.

How can you even begin to justify British taxpayers paying for roads on the other size of Europe? :S

[HotelUser]

Pathetic. There's bums born in England too, why not kick them out?