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!