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

[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

[Geoff Parkstone]

On migrants, I'll just ask you to do some proper research rather than accept the bull**** pumped out by left wig media

Its fascinating how you accuse others of swallowing one biased source of reporting yet you do precisely the same things repeating opinion that matches your own, as if it were gospel truth

[Trickytreesreds]

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?

Christ, I was you'd type less.
Fishing- since when did a trade ingreement ensue surrendering your territoral waters rights? No answer to the bait fish massacre or beam fishing?
Lets not forget, it took major campaigning by Farage, that brought the EU induced, tossing perfectly good fish back into the sea, for exceeding species "quotas"
So, we buy more white fish from Norway? Is that because the EU had decimated ours perhaps?
I told you, in the 80#s cod / haddock were plentiful. it didn't take long to fish it clean.
AND I BLAME OUR GOVERNMENTS FOR ALLOWING IT.

As for your migrant hotels, 1 in 4 are top end. Of course this is highly appreciated.

You dare to slam the military accomodation? Wow,
Good enough for troops, but 18 -35 year old males, no?
Roof, food, warmth. bed. safety
Exactly what more does a refugee need?

As for the illegal migrants are not illegal when they lodge an asylum claim. Well they certainly were all the way through Europe and should be taken into account from any assessment.
On the processing I will agree, the government/civil service/ immigration are a complete disgrace and all claims should be done within 1 month at the most.

It amazes me, how someone can spend thousands to gangsters for trafficking, then claim legal aid to aid their case?

I've said it before and I'll say again. No asylum seeker should be given permanent right to stay, when there is a chance of repatriation.
Other countries are doing this and its why they are leaving Denmark in droves. Even the Germans have woken up.

Back on course, look at the EU for this. external borders are pathetic and its aided by schengen. Of course the eu does little as it undermines their principles.

You tell em Nigel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaytLgPmx0Q

[ramAnag]

On migrants, I'll just ask you to do some proper research rather than accept the bull**** pumped out by left wig media

Its fascinating how you accuse others of swallowing one biased source of reporting yet you do precisely the same things repeating opinion that matches your own, as if it were gospel truth

Bzzzz....Repetition!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Tee hee

Deviation

[MadAmster]

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

The indigenous population of North America walk in single file..... at least the one you saw did.

The nitrogen reduction thoughts/plans, which haven't yet been introduced because they haven't yet been accepted by Parliament and the Senate are no relevant in this. Even if the relevant Law had been passed, it affects livestock farmers. It doesn't affect arable farmers and it doesn't affect greenhouse plant and food growers.

In short, you've grabbed half a fact and run with it and, yet again, made a fool of yourself claiming something that isn't true.

Apology accepted

[Geoff Parkstone]

MA: you mean tomatoes and cucumbers don't excrete ammonia or emit N2O? I'm shocked 😄😄

[swaledale]

On migrants, I'll just ask you to do some proper research rather than accept the bull**** pumped out by left wig media

Its fascinating how you accuse others of swallowing one biased source of reporting yet you do precisely the same things repeating opinion that matches your own, as if it were gospel truth

Please provide an example! Seeing as you repeatedly state something on here which I then prove not to be true and never address it, I won't hold my breath!

[swaledale]

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

I wasn't referring to the national ID card , which in any case is not currently on the agenda, I was referencing the photo ID provision required to vote.

I will overlook the poor sarcasm about being photogenic and refer you to the list of documents that are acceptable, which are heavily weighted towards those the older and more affluent will have.

I mean for what reason is a senior railcard acceptable but not a student railcard? Or a 60+ Oystercard be acceptable but not an 18+ Oystercard?

Younger people, poorer people and those from an ethnic minority background are less likely to have passports or driving licences and yes theyc an apply (online only) for a Local Authority voter ID card, but are much less likely to do so.

Putting barriers in the way of voting is not acceptable surely? We need to be addressing voter turn out getting those who don't vote to vote.

[swaledale]

The indigenous population of North America walk in single file..... at least the one you saw did.

The nitrogen reduction thoughts/plans, which haven't yet been introduced because they haven't yet been accepted by Parliament and the Senate are no relevant in this. Even if the relevant Law had been passed, it affects livestock farmers. It doesn't affect arable farmers and it doesn't affect greenhouse plant and food growers.

In short, you've grabbed half a fact and run with it and, yet again, made a fool of yourself claiming something that isn't true.

Apology accepted

Now now MA, that doesn't sound like Tricky to me, I'm sure you ahve misunderstood him!

[swaledale]

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.

That view is what the authoritarian government relies upon to pass legislation until one day you realise that actually whilst one particular piece of legislation didn't affect you a whole raft of other stuff did.

That goes back to my point about people not being sufficiently concerned about how certain actions of government has a negative impact, for me its important that whilst I may not be inconvenienced, I don't want to see large numbers of those already dumped on by society further disenfranchised.

One can like GP live in an ivory tower and care not for those affected, but if one has concerns for society as a whole and ones children, the negative effects of a large group of disenfranchised voters will become apparent. neither of us a rich enough I think to live completely separated from the wider society.

[ramAnag]

Putting barriers in the way of voting is not acceptable surely? We need to be addressing voter turn out getting those who don't vote to vote.

Agreed. This was my (non party political) point when I introduced this thread within a thread yesterday morning.

Much has been written on here since the Referendum about how we must value our democracy, but - imo - the real threats to our democracy are threefold. 1. The circumstantial disenfranchisement of a section of the electorate. 2. The ignorance and lack of interest shown by a proportion of the electorate. 3. The largely unchallenged dishonesty and disingenuousness displayed by too many individuals and organisations in the build up to elections/referenda.

[MadAmster]

MA: you mean tomatoes and cucumbers don't excrete ammonia or emit N2O? I'm shocked 😄😄

[Andy_Faber]

Please provide an example! Seeing as you repeatedly state something on here which I then prove not to be true and never address it, I won't hold my breath!

Your habit of ‘a recent survey said’ without provenance, or even just stating unfounded ‘facts’ is actually worse than Tricky’s scattergunning - at least tricky offers some ‘evidence’ to be refuted. All you’re doing is gaslighting, Just a suggestion which might even help reinforce your POV

[swaledale]

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.

Actually I have, I worked a lot in East Anglia and its absolutely not a replica of Warsaw! I worked and stayed in Thetford, which has had a lot of eastern EU migration, its also has a lot of ex Londoners which is another story. But it in no way resembles and eastern european country, in fact I'd say it has a more varied retail and service sector than one would expect for a rural town and a lively economy supporting these.

I've worked in Boston too, where the anti Eu feeling is high. Yet in both those places these migrants came and worked in industry and agriculture, doing jobs that are equally available to the locals. Funny I talk to people in those areas now and they are struggling for labour! Such that many are/have reduced their business activity.

I know Great Yarmouth and its a typical run down seaside resort, on the way back up thanks to renewable energy industry. Parts of it, like Blackpool etc but again it aint especially dangerous and I've walked around it very late at night.

This guff about overwhelming services and homes is pure propaganda, EU migration has been a scapegoat for over a decade of under investment by this government in the NHS, in schools and certainly in housing, especially social/council housing is a fact. They have been happy to take the tax revenue paid by these immigrants, but haven't invested it in services.

But as I said and you have ignored, probably because it doesn't suit your anti foreigner play book, immigration has merely replaced a negative birth rate, if the level of births to residents had continued at the rate it was in the 1950's and 1960's, there would still be the issue of a growing population requiring services and homes.

Sorry the issue of overseas students supposedly overstaying their visas and staying here is a right wing myth, the percentage that do is less than 1% and the income they generate through university fees and helping to make this country a world leader in education and research is valuable. Still I guess we should cut that off if it means we can avoid a few thousand extra residents.

If a country's birth rate is below that required for replacement and the UK's is, then immigration is the only way to keep a balance between the older people (thats you and me) and younger people who do the jobs and pay the tax which supports pensions, health and personal care etc. Many studies have shown that migrants contribute positively economically, culturally and intellectually to this country.

All of us and that includes you and the millions who voted for Brexit, have and still do benefit from migration and I doubt many would want to experience living in a place that was stagnating economically (though ironically you are getting that at the moment).

Its a deliberate policy on the part of the Conservatives to run down public services, to create an economy that works for their very rich backers, it has suited them to blame the EU, to blame migrants.

As for New Zealands approach, well it will be interesting to see how they fare over the next decade, with birth rates plummeting around the world, I'm guessing they may well be revising their approach. I take it you would also welcome their approach to lockdowns? Its a totally different country to the Uk at the arse end of the world and a different economic base.

Your correct in the unplanned approach and lack of government investment to meet rising demand, but thats a government failing (of which there are many) it isn't going to be solved by Brexit and it isn't going to be solved by worsening the economic situation in the UK which Brexit is doing and will continue to do until we renegotiate more parts of the trade deal.

Again most of what you rail against, is either untrue, over exaggerated, or not down to the EU, but down to a failure of government. None of which Brexit will solve.