EU Migrants being sent home

[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 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.