At least the Mail occasionally contains some actual news and factual content. You just have to know how to read it to avoid the obvious mind-traps in it. The Express by contrast is useless. It contains nothing of worth whatsoever, from what I can tell.
Good point.
I must sound like a right snob. Get most of my printed news items and features on Europe and immigration from the FT and the Economist. They can be heavy going, but they are free of phrases like "flooding into the UK" or "drain on the taxpayer".
I must sound like a right snob. Get most of my printed news items and features on Europe and immigration from the FT and the Economist. They can be heavy going, but they are free of phrases like "flooding into the UK" or "drain on the taxpayer".
you mean the mail the 2nd most popular paper in the country that sells more then all the left papers combined
or the express that sells more then the guardian and independent combined
perhaps you are out of touch with the majority of the nation
It's at this point I recall a vox-pop comment made on the state of British journalism. "The reason why there aren't that many quality newspapers is because there aren't enough quality people to read them".
because [the FT and Economist] are two neutral sources
Exactly.
Better to stick to news from a 'neutral' source rather than a paper like the Mail with its generated outrage. I'd prefer to do thinking myself rather than let the newspaper do the thinking for me.
As Henry Ford once said "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason why so few engage in it."
Better to stick to news from a 'neutral' source rather than a paper like the Mail with its generated outrage. I'd prefer to do thinking myself rather than let the newspaper do the thinking for me.
As Henry Ford once said "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason why so few engage in it."
that neutral comment was sarcasm btw, those papers are very pro immigration because they like free trade and cheap labour. All papers are biased one way or the other
Perhaps you need to look at how newspaper circulation figures have declined across the board over the last couple of decades before mouthing off about how important and representative of public opinion they are.
Perhaps you need to look at how newspaper circulation figures have declined across the board over the last couple of decades before mouthing off about how important and representative of public opinion they are.
actually the criticism was that you referred to the Mail and Express as crap newspapers that are too the right and the figures clearly show more people buy right leaning papers then left which are almost bankrupt. Criticise it all you want but its very one side, the left papers are even worse and more bias trying to pretend the immigration is wonderful and only brings us benefits
actually the criticism was that you referred to the Mail and Express as crap newspapers that are too the right <snip>
I didn't use the word "right". Nor did I say the Mail was "crap". Are you hallucinating things again? And as I said, why should I care about the left-leaning papers, given that I do not read them, and that I do read one of the papers I am criticising?
Even Germany has fears about Romanians and Bulgarians. They are going to block their membership of schengen
The interior minister said 'whoever is only coming to cash in on state benefits, and is therefore abusing this freedom of movement, needs to be meaningfully prevented'
Even Germany has fears about Romanians and Bulgarians. They are going to block their membership of schengen
The interior minister said 'whoever is only coming to cash in on state benefits, and is therefore abusing this freedom of movement, needs to be meaningfully prevented'
If you read the article you'd note that this is chiefly about the EU2 states' failures to meet "other obligations like tackling corruption and organized crime". Not fear of Romanians and Bulgarians as individuals, nor as migrants. It is not an attempt to deprive them of their rights under the Treaties: just before that bit you selectively quoted (man, this is what I mean about dishonesty - selective quoting, I mean seriously, did you think no-one would check the content of the link?), he said that "The right to freedom of movement means that every EU citizen can live in every member state, if they are working or studying there. Any EU citizen who fulfils these criteria is welcome here."
If you read the article you'd note that this is chiefly about the EU2 states' failures to meet "other obligations like tackling corruption and organized crime". Not fear of Romanians and Bulgarians as individuals, nor as migrants. It is not an attempt to deprive them of their rights under the Treaties: just before that bit you selectively quoted (man, this is what I mean about dishonesty - selective quoting, I mean seriously, did you think no-one would check the content of the link?), he said that "The right to freedom of movement means that every EU citizen can live in every member state, if they are working or studying there. Any EU citizen who fulfils these criteria is welcome here."
actually thats in correct in the article the Interior minister specifically states that he has concerns about the number of migrants not working and claiming benefits
yes they have rights but that does not meant people are not concerned about those rights or do not want them limited or ended
actually thats in correct in the article the Interior minister specifically states that he has concerns about the number of migrants not working and claiming benefits
You wouldn't get that from the article to which you linked. All he says is that those abusing freedom of movement in order to cash in on Germany's benefits system should be prevented from doing so - which I agree with, because that's not the purpose of freedom of movement, either in Germany or the UK. But that's a current problem, not a new one.
However, I'll grant you that the Der Spiegel article itself (available here, but only in German as far as I can tell so far) does say that Friedrich will take additional (unspecified) measures to prevent "pauper immigration" from the EU2 states - which, as above, is also fair enough, though he is not quoted as singling out the EU2 states specifically. Perhaps IDS needs to get in touch and find out what he's planning?
And my essential point remains unchanged: the issue with Schengen is separate to the issue about freedom of movement. If Romania weren't admitted to the Schengen Area its citizens would still have freedom of movement; that bit hasn't changed.
I would like to know what happens to say a Rumanian (or any other EU national) and his wife plus three children that arrive in the UK with no money.
1, Who provides them with some form of accommadation?
2, With not having a job how much weekly income support would they get?
3, Are they entitled to full NHS treatment for free?
What would happen to the above say in
a, Germany
b, France
c, Sweden?
Not surprising that the Romanian government is so keen to promote their own nationals getting full benefits in the UK - they can export their problem citizens and save a packet while their citizens on benefits can come to the UK and get an immediate 500% increase in their entitlements. Good value for the price of a £30 one way flight on Wizzair!
Only question is - are any Brits planning to go to Bucharest and try and claim benefits here. Not many - if any - and that's the inherent problem with free movement if its only one way and you have widely differing social security payouts/entitlements!
Not surprising that the Romanian government is so keen to promote their own nationals getting full benefits in the UK - they can export their problem citizens and save a packet while their citizens on benefits can come to the UK and get an immediate 500% increase in their entitlements. Good value for the price of a £30 one way flight on Wizzair!
Only question is - are any Brits planning to go to Bucharest and try and claim benefits here. Not many - if any - and that's the inherent problem with free movement if its only one way and you have widely differing social security payouts/entitlements!
very good point free movement has destroyed europe because the east is empty and the west is too full. The east is complaining of a lack of workers, tax, pension money and the west has crippling debt and strains on resources.
Its better then getting 0 signatures and only a handful pass 100,000 (about 15 in the last two years) so it is doing very well
It still has months left to run so could get quite high and has been one of the quickest petitions to get that high
Evidence, please. Or is that just more nonsense?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is every chance that this petition will be ignored on the basis that the topic will be scheduled to be discussed in the H of C. We already have an inquiry set up, a couple of Select Committees are watching the situation like hawks and we have the Backbench committee due to report back any day now as to whether Mark Pritchard's request for a Commons debate can be timetabled for the coming weeks. If the committee schedule it (which I think they will), this e-petition serves no further purpose.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is every chance that this petition will be ignored on the basis that the topic will be scheduled to be discussed in the H of C. We already have an inquiry set up, a couple of Select Committees are watching the situation like hawks and we have the Backbench committee due to report back any day now as to whether Mark Pritchard's request for a Commons debate can be timetabled for the coming weeks. If the committee schedule it (which I think they will), this e-petition serves no further purpose.
it adds weight to any discussion in Parliament particularly with the pressure on the tories from ukip and their own backbenchers
if you look at the site the petition is the fourth highest overall and the only ones above it have been going for many more months longer and if you look at the ones below they have also been going for months longer and are significantly below this petition. If you look at the trending petitions it has been number 1 all day everyday for about the past month and is again today
Comments
Good point.
I must sound like a right snob. Get most of my printed news items and features on Europe and immigration from the FT and the Economist. They can be heavy going, but they are free of phrases like "flooding into the UK" or "drain on the taxpayer".
because they are two neutral sources
It's at this point I recall a vox-pop comment made on the state of British journalism. "The reason why there aren't that many quality newspapers is because there aren't enough quality people to read them".
Exactly.
Better to stick to news from a 'neutral' source rather than a paper like the Mail with its generated outrage. I'd prefer to do thinking myself rather than let the newspaper do the thinking for me.
As Henry Ford once said "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable reason why so few engage in it."
that neutral comment was sarcasm btw, those papers are very pro immigration because they like free trade and cheap labour. All papers are biased one way or the other
From a business point of view, both seem reasonable aspirations.
Why would I care about that? I do not read left-wing papers. In fact, I occasionally read the Mail myself. So what was your point again?
I don't read those either.
Oh, I'm sorry, did I have the audacity to criticise a newspaper or body of opinion that you care about?
Perhaps you need to look at how newspaper circulation figures have declined across the board over the last couple of decades before mouthing off about how important and representative of public opinion they are.
perhaps most British people want to look at it from a social, quality of life and standards of living viewpoint
actually the criticism was that you referred to the Mail and Express as crap newspapers that are too the right and the figures clearly show more people buy right leaning papers then left which are almost bankrupt. Criticise it all you want but its very one side, the left papers are even worse and more bias trying to pretend the immigration is wonderful and only brings us benefits
I didn't use the word "right". Nor did I say the Mail was "crap". Are you hallucinating things again? And as I said, why should I care about the left-leaning papers, given that I do not read them, and that I do read one of the papers I am criticising?
Even Germany has fears about Romanians and Bulgarians. They are going to block their membership of schengen
The interior minister said 'whoever is only coming to cash in on state benefits, and is therefore abusing this freedom of movement, needs to be meaningfully prevented'
If you read the article you'd note that this is chiefly about the EU2 states' failures to meet "other obligations like tackling corruption and organized crime". Not fear of Romanians and Bulgarians as individuals, nor as migrants. It is not an attempt to deprive them of their rights under the Treaties: just before that bit you selectively quoted (man, this is what I mean about dishonesty - selective quoting, I mean seriously, did you think no-one would check the content of the link?), he said that "The right to freedom of movement means that every EU citizen can live in every member state, if they are working or studying there. Any EU citizen who fulfils these criteria is welcome here."
What do circulation figures tell us about the views of those who don't read papers?
actually thats in correct in the article the Interior minister specifically states that he has concerns about the number of migrants not working and claiming benefits
yes they have rights but that does not meant people are not concerned about those rights or do not want them limited or ended
You wouldn't get that from the article to which you linked. All he says is that those abusing freedom of movement in order to cash in on Germany's benefits system should be prevented from doing so - which I agree with, because that's not the purpose of freedom of movement, either in Germany or the UK. But that's a current problem, not a new one.
However, I'll grant you that the Der Spiegel article itself (available here, but only in German as far as I can tell so far) does say that Friedrich will take additional (unspecified) measures to prevent "pauper immigration" from the EU2 states - which, as above, is also fair enough, though he is not quoted as singling out the EU2 states specifically. Perhaps IDS needs to get in touch and find out what he's planning?
And my essential point remains unchanged: the issue with Schengen is separate to the issue about freedom of movement. If Romania weren't admitted to the Schengen Area its citizens would still have freedom of movement; that bit hasn't changed.
1, Who provides them with some form of accommadation?
2, With not having a job how much weekly income support would they get?
3, Are they entitled to full NHS treatment for free?
What would happen to the above say in
a, Germany
b, France
c, Sweden?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9905956/We-have-been-promised-benefits-Romanian-envoy-insists.html
Have you been speed-tapping "refresh" again?
Not surprising that the Romanian government is so keen to promote their own nationals getting full benefits in the UK - they can export their problem citizens and save a packet while their citizens on benefits can come to the UK and get an immediate 500% increase in their entitlements. Good value for the price of a £30 one way flight on Wizzair!
Only question is - are any Brits planning to go to Bucharest and try and claim benefits here. Not many - if any - and that's the inherent problem with free movement if its only one way and you have widely differing social security payouts/entitlements!
very good point free movement has destroyed europe because the east is empty and the west is too full. The east is complaining of a lack of workers, tax, pension money and the west has crippling debt and strains on resources.
Petition over 71,000! getting closer
Well, that only leaves 45,602,237 of the electorate who haven't signed it.
Its better then getting 0 signatures and only a handful pass 100,000 (about 15 in the last two years) so it is doing very well
It still has months left to run so could get quite high and has been one of the quickest petitions to get that high
Evidence, please. Or is that just more nonsense?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is every chance that this petition will be ignored on the basis that the topic will be scheduled to be discussed in the H of C. We already have an inquiry set up, a couple of Select Committees are watching the situation like hawks and we have the Backbench committee due to report back any day now as to whether Mark Pritchard's request for a Commons debate can be timetabled for the coming weeks. If the committee schedule it (which I think they will), this e-petition serves no further purpose.
it adds weight to any discussion in Parliament particularly with the pressure on the tories from ukip and their own backbenchers
if you look at the site the petition is the fourth highest overall and the only ones above it have been going for many more months longer and if you look at the ones below they have also been going for months longer and are significantly below this petition. If you look at the trending petitions it has been number 1 all day everyday for about the past month and is again today