OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

It achieved the same end as your admirable relighting of this thread has done, it 'sparked the debate' as the media put it. You've used this forum as a platform for your opinions, why deny Bert and Harriet from Acacia Avenue from the same?

How and when am I responsible for ‘relighting the thread’ and how have I ‘used the forum as a platform for my opinions’ any more than any other of the regular posters? It’s a forum...a place to exchange views and opinions.

‘Bert and Harriet’, whoever they may be, are of course entitled to their opinion...but voting for Brexit on the basis that you oppose immigration from elsewhere in the world other than Europe makes no sense at all to me.

[Trickytreesreds]

My personal opinion? Spread them as thinly as possible with 'friendly' folk - there are some about, we've had a Syrian refugee staying with us until last week, not a problem with my family or my neighbours.

IMO congregating them in one place is a disastrous policy, and I say that from both viewpoints - I've been an expat in a community of expats (briefly) and it does nothing but build up tensions with the established community

Edit: Just for confirmation, the above is a fact, I'm aware that some here don't believe any of the anecdotes I offer

You need your ears syringing. Your lodgers name was Myriam not Syrian.

[Geoff Parkstone]

You need your ears syringing. Your lodgers name was Myriam not Syrian.

Fares comment, TTR, but she is Lebanese not Syrian

[Trickytreesreds]

How and when am I responsible for ‘relighting the thread’ and how have I ‘used the forum as a platform for my opinions’ any more than any other of the regular posters? It’s a forum...a place to exchange views and opinions.

‘Bert and Harriet’, whoever they may be, are of course entitled to their opinion...but voting for Brexit on the basis that you oppose immigration from elsewhere in the world other than Europe makes no sense at all to me.

That doesn't wash with me either.
Every Brexit voter I know, wanted immigration controlled, not stopped.
Their point about the EU was that, you can upsticks, move somewhere else and cream that countries social systems the same as a native.
We as a country, gave eastern europe, that very license first, whilst everyone else did it slowly and cautiously.
Disaster for many communities ensued.

As for the rest of the world.
Their point about the rest of the world, was that it was significantly harder for a non EU citizen with skills to get access to the country, especially with EU private monopoly on internal markets.
So a Romanian gypsy, with the literacy of a 5 year old, can walk into the UK but a jet engine fitter has to jump through mountains of hoops.

Turns out, we forgot that British politicians have the spine of a jelly fish and as much respect for peoples wishes, as Stalin had for political rivals.

[Trickytreesreds]

Fares comment, TTR, but she is Lebanese not Syrian

Oh her name is Denise then?

[MadAmster]

I suspect their website is a tad deceptive then

https://www.astoncourthotelderby.com/

Imagine turning up on a whim expecting that, only to find MAs description

On the other hand, try to book online via that very website and their room availability is zilch for the foreseeable future. Idem ditto Derby Station Hotel.

[MadAmster]

Yo TTR, how about a reply to my request for an explanation of your thought processes regarding Dutch growers...... or have I got you by the short n curlies on that one

[swaledale]

That doesn't wash with me either.
Every Brexit voter I know, wanted immigration controlled, not stopped.
Their point about the EU was that, you can upsticks, move somewhere else and cream that countries social systems the same as a native.
We as a country, gave eastern europe, that very license first, whilst everyone else did it slowly and cautiously.
Disaster for many communities ensued.

As for the rest of the world.
Their point about the rest of the world, was that it was significantly harder for a non EU citizen with skills to get access to the country, especially with EU private monopoly on internal markets.
So a Romanian gypsy, with the literacy of a 5 year old, can walk into the UK but a jet engine fitter has to jump through mountains of hoops.

Turns out, we forgot that British politicians have the spine of a jelly fish and as much respect for peoples wishes, as Stalin had for political rivals.

Well you have your wish, almost - dramatic fall in EU migrants and a big increase in non EU migrants.

You have very much over simplified the situation, your correct that Labour did not apply the "break" on new entrants, on the other hand the Uk did benefit both growth wise and investment in services up until 2010.

Not really sure what creaming the country's social systems means, sounds like you listened to too many slogans which aren't based on facts!

[swaledale]

I’ve never really understood the objections to a national ID card as we all, voluntarily, carry so many other forms of ID anyway.

Photo ID will possibly penalise the elderly and I do wonder how necessary it is. Just gone through my wallet (phone case actually since we’ve become increasingly cashless) and I can produce at least five pieces of plastic, which I carry virtually everywhere, as proof of identity but only one, my driving licence, qualifies as photo ID.

Would have thought the voting card we all need, together with one other piece of ‘evidence’ would be sufficient but then I always use a postal vote anyway.

Thats exactly the point rA, the UK has never had a compulsory ID scheme in peacetime, the libertarian in me suggests there is no reason to introduce one now. What you choose to participate in on a voluntary basis is entirely up to you, why surrender yet more information to the state?

The scheme is going to cost millions to solve a problem that doesn't exist and its heavily weighted towards the older generation in terms of acceptable ID's. It will penalise younger voters and of course minority groups.

[Trickytreesreds]

Yo TTR, how about a reply to my request for an explanation of your thought processes regarding Dutch growers...... or have I got you by the short n curlies on that one

Not really, as its a matter of perspective.
For the previous 7 years Holland produced approx 900 000 tons of Toms a year, then poof!!!!
Gas prices and the government deciding that Nitrogen reduction is being slapped on farming.
Naaaaw, Holland couldn't be bothered sounds right to me AND definitely not a Brexit issue

[Trickytreesreds]

Well you have your wish, almost - dramatic fall in EU migrants and a big increase in non EU migrants.

You have very much over simplified the situation, your correct that Labour did not apply the "break" on new entrants, on the other hand the Uk did benefit both growth wise and investment in services up until 2010.

Not really sure what creaming the country's social systems means, sounds like you listened to too many slogans which aren't based on facts!

Says you sir.

It was done with no plan or thought of impacts on selected regions.
East Anglia for example. Overnight have been turned into replicas of Warsaw. Services swamped and over whelmed. Been there lately? I certainly have and understand. Housing swallowed up.

The fall in EU migrants? Not sure about that either. 6 million applied to stay ffs.
The outside EU migration is a government failing. Too many student visas and holiday visas, that were merely a cover to disappear into the country.
Control/criteria/restrictions should be at the heart of every countrys system.

NB, my bro in law works at RR. He was courted to go work in New Zealand
They were going through with it, but were shocked by the restrictions they would have to agree to.

Certain amount of funds at their disposal/ had to have medical cover/ couldn't claim off the state for 5 years/ criminal record free/ health screening and so on. Also, should the state say, they had failed to adhere to any rules imposed on them, then pay for their own deportation even if goods had to be seized. AND THEY FISHED FOR HIM!

Now compare that to what has/is walking into this country and reapply to your answer.

[ramAnag]

Thats exactly the point rA, the UK has never had a compulsory ID scheme in peacetime, the libertarian in me suggests there is no reason to introduce one now. What you choose to participate in on a voluntary basis is entirely up to you, why surrender yet more information to the state?

The scheme is going to cost millions to solve a problem that doesn't exist and its heavily weighted towards the older generation in terms of acceptable ID's. It will penalise younger voters and of course minority groups.

I’m not actually advocating it, Swale...it just doesn’t really concern me. We carry so many other forms of ID and our movements are traceable in so many other ways these days that one more just doesn’t bother me and if it entitles one to vote and carries certain other information such as donor and blood group details etc it may actually be beneficial.
Not something I can get worked up about, although I wouldn’t support it being made compulsory to carry it at all times and produce it on demand.

[Trickytreesreds]

Thats exactly the point rA, the UK has never had a compulsory ID scheme in peacetime, the libertarian in me suggests there is no reason to introduce one now. What you choose to participate in on a voluntary basis is entirely up to you, why surrender yet more information to the state?

The scheme is going to cost millions to solve a problem that doesn't exist and its heavily weighted towards the older generation in terms of acceptable ID's. It will penalise younger voters and of course minority groups.

Why?
You can have a card that has your name/birth/ address/age/photo on it.
Information the state should/can get

Why would you be scared to hide that, unless you have something to hide?

How would that penalise younger voters or minority groups?

Except in -voting fraud, by voting in a student area and your home address/ working illegally/ buying fags and booze
being curbed

[swaledale]

There thousands of EU rules and laws now integrated into our systems. Everyone of them comes into conflict with anything new we want to do. I certainly am not going to trawl through them all.
But lets take the most controversial of the moment.
1. Fishing- firstly, let me say I have been deep sea angling since intoduced to it at 15. In those days, you would come back with a boat full of fish. I have watched it decline to a shadow of its former self, by massive over fishing. My first ever cod weighed 19ibs, I was awe struck. Now 3 lbs is an avergae fish? That is worrying. I have asked many skippers why and the answer is always the same. Quotas decided by the EU allow too many people to fish the North sea. They portray themselves as managing the stocks, but its bollox.
They don't all fish for the fish we want either. They trawl for bait fish species, just to turn them into fertilizer for agriculture. What do you suppose the Cod/Haddock feed on? The food chain is very complex. Even the methods used by the EU fleets are wrong under their rules, like beam fishing. Net sizes as well.
We aint in the EU anymore, but still we follow the rules laid out. No wonder the fisherman kick off.
Same for shell fish as well. One minute, whilst an EU member or methods/ treatments are perfectly acceptable, then they suddenly are not due to "their" rules. Spite just about covers it.

2. Illegal migrants.
Directive 2013/797EC which basically sets high standards of accomodation that asylum seekers must be housed in. Now forgetting the fact that the French do not put theirs in 4 and 5 star hotels( I blame our governnment/judges/left wing moaners for that). We are not in the EU anymore, so how the hell is this still applying?
Camps and tents are used all over the world to house refugees, not top notch hotels. Yet EU rules and laws have forced us to do so.
Folks wonder why we are now the current top target for migrants?

Well your not right to suggest that there are thousands of EU laws and directives that stop us doing anything new. Thats *******s now and always has been *******s. Successive (mostly Tory) governments have blamed the EU for not doing things that they could do, but didn't want to. Brexit is fast putting that scapegoat aside, they will have to find something else.

Your over simplifying fishing, I'm not in anyway suggesting that the EU fisheries policy was working or even made much sense, BUT there is a whole set of other treaties that were agreed between countries that cover fishing. The biggest problem with UK fishing is that a significant number of UK fishermen sold their quotas to foreign fishermen!! The fact that we have left the EU doesn't alter the legal situation regarding that and it will take time to unravel.

Most of our white fish comes from Norwegian fishing grounds, the UK government have always negotiated that separately as its outwith the EU, for some reason they ****ed it up last year.

The shellfish issue is quite simple and nothing to do with the EU being spiteful!! I do find this attitude of the Brexit supporters most interesting, they insult, and slag off the EU and wonder why they might not be as amenable as they could be - but also seem astounded that having left the EU, we no longer enjoy the same privileges and trade terms we had when a member! I mean just fancy, you resign as membership of the a club and then moan when you can't get in!

Anyway back to Shellfish, as an EU member we didn't have to prove certain standards on food, because the UK had signed up to maintain those standards. Now we have left that no longer applies. Yes you can argue nothing materially has changed, but its not as if it wasn't clear that was the case before we left. You can't have it both ways, though I know Brexit supporters would like to! Actually if we had stayed in the single market and customs union, it wouldn't be an issue.

On migrants, I'll just ask you to do some proper research rather than accept the bull**** pumped out by right wig media. Its perfectly clear, that the UK is not the top target for migrants, thats a fact which cannot be disputed.

There are actually less migrants coming by boat than used to come over by ferry/tunnel, there were hardly any before Brexit, and it could be resolved quite simply by having a legal route for them to travel and to process them in France - the French offered to set up and partially fund a processing centre in Calais, the Uk government refused.

Really the UK government is using "top notch" hotels? More over the top and inaccurate hyperbole and we are not complying with any directive, just that providing a decent standard of accommodation is what a civilised country would do.

The only problem with the ex military base that there was such a fuss about, was that it was over crowded, and that was down to the government not processing applications. Having said that the standard of accommodation for the military is not that great, since its been outsourced.

So have a legal route, process applications quickly, deport those with no valid claim - simples.

On by the way they are not illegal migrants, legality only applies at the time they claim asylum and that's a UN rule not an EU.

So there we go then your two examples of EU rules and regulations impacting the UK are in fact not so.

Perhaps you'd care to try again?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Thats exactly the point rA, the UK has never had a compulsory ID scheme in peacetime, the libertarian in me suggests there is no reason to introduce one now. What you choose to participate in on a voluntary basis is entirely up to you, why surrender yet more information to the state?

The scheme is going to cost millions to solve a problem that doesn't exist and its heavily weighted towards the older generation in terms of acceptable ID's. It will penalise younger voters and of course minority groups.

Struggling to understand why a national ID card would "of course" penalise minority groups - do they not photograph well? Are disabled people camera shy? Do some minority groups still feel their soul will be stolen by a cameraman?

It's a very "-ist" statement for you to make, that suggests one group is less photogenic. As for penalising younger voters - why would it? They are amongst the most trackable people in society already, so one more document is hardly an inconvenience, especially since someone will create an app to store it anyway.

So one can only assume your "penalising" refers to the £ 25 (for example) that such a document might cost. Such penalty cost would of course apply to everyone equally, so that minority group of "UK billionaires" need not unduly worry.

That said, I can see both the advantages of a national ID card and some of the libertairin counter argument (back on the fence again, rA), but we're already remorsely tracked in most aspects of life either by cookies, CCTV or other more sinister methods, so Im not sure it makes any difference. As has been noted, most of the objectors will be those who have "reason to hide" such as illegal immigrants, undercover cops, petty criminals etc